Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. On February 22, 2019, the Defendant driven a D truck (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) around 16:31 on February 22, 2019, and turned it into two lanes between the two-lane line and the two-lane line at the right edge of 500 meters radius after the F stop in Kimhae-si.

G while driving a H car on the two-lanes along the mother line, the Defendant’s vehicle is at the front of the two-lane, and the vehicle is at the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the vehicle is at the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, and then a sudden change was made in the front of the Defendant vehicle. At the end, the G operated the brake in a state where the distance between the Defendant vehicle and the vehicle is reduced to a number of meters, thereby obstructing the progress of the Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant was able to drive the horn.

As a result, the Defendant was driven in order not to see the non-party vehicle, and the Plaintiff, who was driven by the vehicle I (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) behind the Defendant’s vehicle, was also driven by the vehicle, but was concealed by the Defendant on the ground that the safety distance was not secured (hereinafter “the instant accident”). As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 18,976,324, and Q (K), respectively, to the Dispute Settlement Council for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by suffering from the injury such as a stoke, etc. from the injury of the stoke, etc.

G was suspended from prosecution on March 29, 2019 on the grounds of the charge of violation of road traffic laws, such as “the captain caused the instant accident by sudden operation in front of the Defendant vehicle.”

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 8, 12, 13, Eul evidence No. 13, Eul evidence No. 11 (including a number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the gist of the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, the defendant provided a diver driver loan by stimulating the G by hindering the course of the non-party vehicle and sounding the horn in the process of combining the main line. Thus, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's damage caused by the accident in this case.

The driver of any motor vehicle shall be the case in which it is necessary to prevent any danger and disaster.