The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence of employment. (1) The plaintiff vehicle is presumed to have been driving at an ordinary speed of less than the limit to the immediately preceding fence (50-60 km per hour). (2) considering that the deceased vehicle might have taken a sudden action immediately before the collision with the protection fence of this case, it is presumed that the actual effective speed of the plaintiff vehicle would have been smaller than about 43-52 km per hour. (3) The degree between the time when the plaintiff vehicle shocks the protection fence of this case is presumed to have reached about 30∑. (4) The plaintiff vehicle's vehicle is likely to have been working at a narrow width of more than 50 km than the road of this case. (5) The vehicle of this case was constructed at a relatively lower level than the road of this case due to the fact that the plaintiff vehicle of this case was falling at least 1, and the vehicle of this case, which was constructed at least 6th of the road of this case, and it is necessary to reinforce the size of the plaintiff vehicle of this case.