1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3.The ancillary.

Based on the facts, the defendant is driving the instant vehicle as the owner of the Cchip vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”), and is driving the instant vehicle.

The father is the father of the deceased deceased deceased deceased B.

B On April 30, 2013, around 02:25, when driving the instant vehicle and driving the instant vehicle in order to prevent the accident, at a speed exceeding 50 km, the driver was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to observe the speed limit and prevent the accident by operating the steering gear and brake system accurately, and the vehicle was set up in the right-hand direction as part of the instant vehicle with the speed limit on the left-hand side of the instant vehicle, thereby leaving about 110 km in the speed direction. In this case, the driver was 80 km in the speed limit, and the driver was 60 km in the speed limit. In this case, the driver was able to prevent the accident by driving the steering gear and brake system accurately, but the driver was able to maintain the balance of the vehicle while driving the vehicle in excess of 50 km, and caused the collision to the right-hand side part of the instant vehicle, and caused the damage to the Plaintiff’s telecommunication vehicle due to the damage of the said vehicle due to the death of the said vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 6,012,390, which is the cost of restoring damaged telegraphism caused by the said accident.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the main cause of claim as to each of the causes of claim is determined. The plaintiff subscribed to the "the limited driving agreement that restricts the insured to Defendant 1 in entering into the automobile insurance contract as the owner of the vehicle in this case." Thus, in preserving and managing the vehicle in this case, the plaintiff has a duty of care to safely keep and manage the vehicle and keys so that a person other than the defendant who is the insured does not drive the vehicle in this case.