1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On August 27, 2018, the driver of a basic fact C vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) driven the Defendant vehicle at a speed of 14:50, and driven the Defendant vehicle at a slow speed near the center separation zone of the road located in the direction of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, which is moving back to the string line at a slow speed, along the signal atmosphere.

While driving a scoo, the Plaintiff discovered the form of moving the Defendant’s vehicle on the front side of the said lane, operated the bcooke, and went beyond it along with the scoo.

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 1 and 2, each of the statements and images of Evidence No. 1 and 2]

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. As the Plaintiff’s assertion was neglected to confirm the rear side and caused an accident that the Plaintiff was in excess of the scooter’s cooter’s cooter’s cooter’s cooter’s cood, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for the damages equivalent to the scooter’s cood repair cost.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the above recognition facts and the evidence mentioned above, and the defendant's vehicle has already turned back a short distance from the intent to create a space to set the direction while occupying a considerable part of the above lane. Thus, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff's course was obstructed. Moreover, there was a considerable distance between the plaintiff's scoo and the defendant's vehicle at the time when the plaintiff discovered the defendant's vehicle in the front section because the plaintiff left the same lane, and there was a considerable distance between the plaintiff's scoo and the defendant's vehicle at the time when the plaintiff discovered the defendant's vehicle in the front section, and the plaintiff appears to have lost the center of scoo in the wind to rapidly manipulate boo and hand, it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal link between the backer of the defendant's vehicle and the damage caused by the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.