1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part extended from the trial) is dismissed.

3...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a taxi engineer for business use belonging to the Jae-gu Unemployment Co., Ltd., and the Defendant is a driver of E-math Freight C-Eth (hereinafter “Defendant”) owned by the e-Bath Alcoholic Beverages.

On May 18, 2015, around 18:54, the Plaintiff stopped in order to get a customer on the one-way way prior to the exit, two times in the front of the exit, where it is possible for the Government to see, and the Defendant followed it, followed by which the Defendant: (a) sent a horn to the Plaintiff from his own vehicle to the sounder; and (b) paid the time.

A vehicle being pushed ahead of the vision was parked after a horn was sounded, and the defendant driven the defendant's vehicle, and the plaintiff moved about about about 10 meters to the place where the defendant had done the time with the defendant and parked immediately.

After that, the plaintiff, in order to restrain the defendant's vehicle in operation, was in excess of the center in the process of trying to catch the left side of the defendant's vehicle by hand.

(hereinafter “instant accident”: Provided, That as seen earlier, it is not clear whether the left-hand side of the loaded cargo was fluored by hand, and whether the cargo was fluored by hand, and did not go beyond the magazine. On May 18, 2015, the Defendant directly reported the instant accident to the police around 19:08.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including the number of pages) and the fact-finding with the second Vice Chief of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency of the trial court, as a result of the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, at the time of the accident of this case, the defendant was aware of the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, since the defendant was getting off the window of driver's seat, he was aware that he was trying to get up his own vehicle at a speed, and even if the plaintiff viewed the plaintiff to have up the part of the letter after the left side of the defendant's vehicle's loading, he set the plaintiff at a speed without a stop.