1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except where the Plaintiff added the following judgments as to the allegations added by the court of first instance, and thus, the same is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the argument regarding the limitation of liability, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the fault of the Defendant’s vehicle without properly examining the direction of progress on the ground that the Defendant’s vehicle was driven by the Plaintiff, a pedestrian, and that it was unjust to limit the Defendant’s responsibility to 80% since the Defendant’s driver was fully responsible for the accident.

In other words, the accident location of this case is a place where the vehicle can pass at any time because there is no distinction between delivery and vehicular road as a farmer with a width of about three meters, and the vehicle of this case was a situation where about 50 meters has come to the wind of entering the farm of this case, and the plaintiff walking the farm of this case as a direct line, which is the place where the accident site, could have seen that the plaintiff could have seen that the vehicle of this case was moving to the farm of this case for the movement at the time. It is reasonable to limit the damage ratio of the defendant to 80% in total, considering the occurrence of the accident, location, time, etc. of the accident of this case, which could have been known by the records of this case, such as the fact that the plaintiff could have been aware of the vehicle of this case due to noise generated by the operation of the defendant vehicle, which is a large truck of 24t.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the king evidence, according to the results of the response by the physical expert witness (a medical school Synas Hospital H at the school of the household), the judgment of the first instance is rendered, notwithstanding the absence of the king on the part of the injury caused by the instant accident.