beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Plaintiff A, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded in the trial of the trial, is as follows.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 29, 2007, when the Defendant drives a G Trler vehicle owned by the G Trler Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) on and around 08:06 on December 29, 2007, according to the three-lane new line (including the two-lanes before the back) from the Gun mountain to the west side of the west (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”), while driving a new line (including the two-lanes) in the two-lanes from the left side of the proceeding to the right side of the Plaintiff A driver’s J 1 ton of freight (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) facing the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).
(B) The actual sulfur survey report at the police station stating the shape of the intersection of this case and the situation of the accident will be the same as the report on the site of the accident.
As a result of the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as the damage to the sub-pathal and dys of trees, the strong hemp, the cerebral cerebral cerebral Sponse, and acute salphyitis.
C. The plaintiff A was issued a summary order of KRW 500,00 on the charge of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents that the defendant and the passenger of the plaintiff's vehicle sustained each injury to the Z by the negligence in violation of the plaintiff's signal. The plaintiff A filed a formal trial with the Jeonju District Court's 2008DaMaga838 on October 8, 2009, asserting that he did not violate the signal at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff A did not violate the signal at the time of the accident, and the above court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the purport that "it is difficult to view that the plaintiff A was proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the accident occurred by violating the signal."
Although the prosecutor appealed, the appellate court (the Jeonju District Court 2009No1174) dismissed the prosecutor's appeal on April 27, 2010, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
The successor intervenor in this case.