1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. B, around 07:50 on Nov. 23, 2009, driven a C-car (hereinafter “A-car”) along the ceiling in Yongcheon-si. In such a case, a person engaged in driving service had a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving a vehicle while properly examining the flow of the vehicle prior to the front door.

그럼에도 B은 이를 게을리한 채 가해차량을 운행하다가, 앞서 천문로를 따라 주행하면서 주남네거리 방면으로 가기 위하여 왼쪽 깜빡이등을 켜고 좌회전을 하던 원고 운전의 D 차량(이하, ‘원고 차량’이라 한다) 운전석 뒷부분을 가해 차량의 앞부분으로 충돌하였다

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (b)

As a result, the plaintiff suffered injuries, such as patrialosis, patrial final disease, etc., caused by the escape from the 5-6 conical signboards.

C. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence that occurred due to the failure to drive while properly examining B's bank, and thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the vehicle in this case, is liable to directly compensate the plaintiff for the damage incurred by the accident in this case pursuant to Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act.

나. 책임의 제한 여부 피고는, 선행하던 원고 차량이 왼쪽 깜빡이등도 켜지 않고 갑자기 속도를 줄이면서 좌회전하는 바람에, B은 원고 차량이 직진하는 것으로 오해한 채 좌회전하다가 원고 차량과 추돌하게 되었는바, 원고의 이러한 잘못은 이 사건 사고의 한 원인이 되었으므로, 피고의 책임을 50%...