1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2014, at around 17:35, the Plaintiff conflicts with Defendant B’s E-Poter 2 cargo vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant truck”) that moved to the left at the seat of a permanent terminal located in the area of the YY-dong border (hereinafter “instant intersection”) while driving a three-distance intersection (hereinafter “the instant intersection”) in front of the Y-dong border (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) and proceeding to the E-Poter (hereinafter “Defendant truck”) in front of the YY-dong border (hereinafter “the instant intersection”) at the seat of the permanent terminal, and going to the E-Poter 2 truck (hereinafter “Defendant truck”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

At the time of the conflict between the left-hand part of the plaintiff Otoba and the upper-hand part of the driver's seat of the defendant cargo vehicle, and the site status is as shown in the attached Form.

C. The signal cycle system of the instant intersection was comprised of 140 seconds in total, such as (1) the right turn signal from the permanent terminal room to the permanent terminal room, and (2) the right turn signal from the permanent terminal room to the permanent terminal room at the eart room is given 74 seconds (including 3 seconds of yellow time). (3) The right turn signal from the permanent court room to the permanent terminal room at the eart room was given 38 seconds (including 3 seconds of yellow time). (3) The right turn signal from the permanent court room at the eart room was given to the permanent court room at the 140 seconds.

Defendant C is the owner of Defendant Cargo Vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was driving the Plaintiff Ortoba and entered the instant intersection in a normal condition, and there was no left-hand turn signal at the time of the instant accident, but there was a conflict with Defendant B’s Defendant Cargo Vehicle entering the said intersection in violation of the signal.

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered serious injury, such as an aggregate of the left-hand side.