1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim is dismissed.

2. The expansion from the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the arguments by the parties is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the first and second provisions of the judgment of the court of first instance are followed as follows. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Under the second side, the second side to the fourth parallel, " was tried to make an illegal internship at a three-lane intersection where no signal, etc. is available while driving a two-lane road," the second side to "the third-lane intersection where no signal, etc. is available while driving on the two-lane road."

Part 3, Parts 15 through 4 shall be cut up to 3 pages as follows:

“B. The Defendant’s assertion B did not sufficiently secure the safety distance with the Defendant’s vehicle, and did not make efforts to avoid the abnormal operation of the Defendant vehicle, and the instant accident occurred along the two lanes or the right edges of the road pursuant to Article 14 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 16(1) and attached Table 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. However, the instant accident occurred concurrently with the foregoing negligence, and it is reasonable to view that the liability ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the negligence in B is 51,090,629 [the Plaintiff’s main claim is without merit, and the Plaintiff is not obliged to pay the Defendant KRW 490,97,99 [the Plaintiff] [the Plaintiff’s property damage amounted to KRW 602,65,093,46,4086,400,400,300,300,305,305,305,405,51,000,000 won];

2. We also examine the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

(a) the above facts of recognition and the entries or images of Gap evidence 67, 9, and Eul evidence 3 to 5;