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. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following "2. height", and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows: (a) the fourth 2nd 2nd 8th son of the judgment of the court of first instance.

④ After entering the above road, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven at a very slow speed of 22.5km, and the Defendant’s vehicle was in front of 132 meters from the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the above road, and was in front of 48 meters from the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the above road. If the Defendant’s vehicle driven at a speed of 80km at the speed of 80km, the Defendant vehicle was analyzed to have been in front of about 80.5 meters from the vehicle around the time when the vehicle entered the first road. If the Defendant’s vehicle was in front of 80.5 meters from the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in light of the speed of driving, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in front of 80.5 meters from the Plaintiff’s vehicle, there seems to have occurred any accidents that conflict with the retaining wall, etc. outside of the road by making its own hand a right way.

⑤ Even if the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at fault without using the direction direction, etc. and immediately entered the two lanes, the restriction speed of the said road is 80km per hour, and the average driving speed of other vehicles driving on the said one lane prior to and after the Defendant’s vehicle was analyzed at 71-81km per hour. Therefore, it is difficult to expect that the Plaintiff’s driver as the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who entered the said road, would be at least 132 meters after the Plaintiff’s entry into the said road, would be at an abnormal speed of the Defendant’s driver, who was at least 132 meters after the Plaintiff’s entry into the said road, would be at a disadvantage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s driver entered the said one lane while driving the two lanes, the Defendant’s driver was under the influence of alcohol 0.78% at the time of driving the Defendant’s vehicle.