1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 29, 2012, the Defendant’s operating vehicle A2.5 tons of asphalt spraying vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) went in violation of the signal in the direction of the air transport unit from the upper distance on the gold-line in the gold-si, Gasan-si. On the right side of the proceeding, the instant truck’s dump truck owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant truck”) that was driven in accordance with the new code was destroyed by shocking the dump pan, etc. of the instant truck owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant truck”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff spent KRW 1,200,000 as the towing cost of the instant truck, and KRW 200,00 as the freight carriage cost.

C. On March 28, 2013, the instant truck was stored in the Seodaemun Industry Limited Company, which is a business exclusive service center for benz Gwangju (hereinafter referred to as “Sing Industry”), and the Plaintiff sold the instant truck at KRW 11,500,000 to the Jeonju Construction Machinery Sales Company (hereinafter “Seoul Construction Machinery Sales Company”).

Jeonju Construction Machinery Sales Co., Ltd. has repaired the instant truck through the Western Mining Business, which is a service center exclusively used for the benz's commercial use, and paid 24,200,000 won as its repair cost to the light industry.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the court of first instance's inquiry into the mining industry, the result of the inquiry into the Samsung Fire Maritime Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Masung Fire Maritime Insurance"), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who violated the signal. Thus, the Defendant, the operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the accident in this case.

3. Scope of damages.

A. The plaintiff's assertion is even after the acceptance of the accident of this case.