1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On October 17, 2015, around 23:30, the head office of the Sinpo-si, the U.S. Sinpo-si, the U.S. Si, the Plaintiff’s si (A and the attached Form No. 51 “Ma1”) has left the left on the right-hand signal, in violation of the signal at one-lane, the right-hand turn on the right-hand turn from the road on the right-hand turn from among the four-lanes of the U.S., and the Defendant’s si (B, and the above de facto yellow survey report “Ma2 vehicles”), which was directly sent the right-hand turn on the right-hand turn in the opposite direction, conflict with the Defendant’s si (hereinafter “Ma, the above de facto yellow survey report”), and the damaged bus (hereinafter “Ma and the above de facto yellow survey report”) caused the Defendant’s si to shock the right-hand turn-out signal at the Intersection, which was installed by negligence in violation of the Plaintiff’s right-hand signal at the intersection.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken account of the overall purport of arguments in the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, i.e., the road with a restricted speed of 60km a speed of 100 to 103km a speed of 10km a speed of 10km a speed of 100 to 103km a speed of the heart (Ga evidence 8 and 9), and ② the defendant's taxi operated with a restricted speed of 50km a speed of 10km a speed of 100 to 103km a speed of the city (the plaintiff's taxi was found to have been able to avoid an accident or prevent the expansion of damage due to the collision by finding in advance the plaintiff's taxi in violation of the signal at the time of the accident and taking appropriate measures such as speed reduction, etc.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit.