1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In this case, the reasoning of this court in this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(See the attached Form of the first instance judgment). The "8.7-85.7 km/s" in the fifth and fourth sentence of the fifth and fourth sentence of the first instance judgment shall be changed to "8.7-88.7 km/h" and shall be stated.

According to Article 2-2-2(b)(1) of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following shall be stated. 1) The above facts are as follows. The accident of this case is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's driver, who is the driver of the vehicle of this case, has committed a violation of the speed limit and the negligence of the centering on the center line due to the violation of the duty to stop the vehicle of this case, the negligence of the co-defendant C, who is the driver of the vehicle of this case, and the negligence of the violation of L, who is the driver of the vehicle of the above vehicle of this case, and the negligence of the violation of the speed limit. Thus, the accident of this case is jointly liable for the victims such as the network M, N, F, etc. with the co-defendant of the court of first instance, and the co-defendant B is the user of the co-defendant of the first instance trial, and the co-defendant D of the first instance is the insurer of the above vehicle of this vehicle of this case, and the defendant is the insurer of the above low vehicle of this case.

B. On the other hand, the Defendant: (a) the instant accident entirely overlaps with the Defendant’s negligence, i.e., the Plaintiff’s driver, and the Defendant’s co-defendant C, a co-defendant of the first instance trial, which is the Plaintiff’s driver; (b) there was no causation between the instant accident and the Defendant’s traffic signal violation; or (c) L cannot be deemed to be a continuous operation by driving at a limited speed of 80km/h only at a low speed; and (d) there was no circumstance that, if the Plaintiff did not drive the vehicle, it could avoid the collision by immediately accelerating or avoiding the collision upon finding the median line of the Plaintiff’s center line. Therefore, such a limited speed violation was negligent.