1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle stops at a point where the collision occurred between the center line after the collision of this case and 0.86 meters from the center line, and the Defendant’s vehicle and the victims did not fall at the center line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately front, but fall at the center line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately front, and the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were considerably damaged, it shall be deemed that the collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle between the moment when the Defendant’s vehicle gets over the center line and returned the Plaintiff’s vehicle to its lane while discovering the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the rapid kibro, and therefore, D was negligent in the instant accident while driving over the center line.

Even if D did not violate the central line, the point of the accident in this case is a sudden hacker length close to 90 degrees, road width is 4.8m, and road width is 4.8m wide on the right side. Thus, as a driver of the Obane, he has a duty of care to prepare for the driving of a large truck, such as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, by securing an electric view view while driving slowly, and driving it on the center or the right side of the lane. However, D was negligent in driving a rapid hacker path without properly securing the electric view while driving the center line at least, and it is reasonable to deem that the above rate of negligence in D is at least 15% in the occurrence of the accident in this case.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the joint tortfeasor, is obligated to pay D the indemnity amount of KRW 49,500,000 (=330,000,000 x 0.15) equivalent to the ratio of negligence of D out of the above compensation amount to the plaintiff who paid all the compensation amount for damages to Eul and exempted D.

3. At first of all, whether D was negligent in breaking the central line, and the number of evidence Nos. 4 to 13.