1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. This is due to the extension of claims for the costs of appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고는 2017. 7. 29. 14:20경 원고 소유의 B 차량(이하 ‘원고 차량’이라 한다)을 운전하여 서울 영등포구 C 인근 ‘D’ 영업소 뒷문 앞 차선이 없는 이면도로를 지나 위 이면도로와 대로가 만나는 ‘ㅓ'자형 교차로에 이르러 문래동 방면으로 우회전을 하려다 같은 이면도로에서 같은 방면으로 우회전을 하려는 E 6.5톤 윙바디 화물차량(이하 ’피고 차량‘이라 한다)의 우측 측면 보호대와 원고 차량의 좌측 앞 휀더 부분이 서로 충돌하는 사고(이하 ’이 사건 사고‘라 한다)가 발생하였고, 이 사건 사고로 인하여 원고 차량은 1,678,961원 상당의 수리가 필요할 정도로 손상되었다.

B. The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that there was a gross negligence on the part of the defendant's driver, because the defendant's vehicle, who had stopped in order to make a right-way by the plaintiff's vehicle, was trying to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred. On the other hand, the defendant's assertion that there was a gross negligence on the part of the driver of the defendant's vehicle because the defendant's vehicle prior to the side road could not move by right-way according to the edge of the road on the front side of the vehicle, and it is difficult for the plaintiff's vehicle who had been driven by the defendant's vehicle to move by right-way into the right-hand side of the defendant's vehicle and carried

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the judgment unit, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the entire pleading and video, are the same as the plaintiff's vehicle.