beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for the case where the part in the part in the 3rd to 5th to 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part in the 2nd sub-paragraph (b)) is changed as follows, and therefore, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. It is unclear as to whether the photographer Gap 2, 7, and 9’s photographic image was accurately reflected in the situation at the time of the accident because the photographer’s photographic image is unknown.
Even if the above image was taken in the situation at the time of the accident, it cannot be confirmed whether the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at the time of the accident, and it is difficult to verify whether the vehicle was parked at the time of the accident. On the back of the vehicle immediately after the Defendant’s vehicle, a partition line for parking is maintained, and there is no evidence to confirm whether the point the Defendant’s vehicle parked is prohibited from stopping or stopping.
Even if the parking of the defendant vehicle cannot be determined as illegal, even if the parking of the defendant vehicle was illegal, there was an inevitable aspect that it was deemed to have been for loading and unloading of the cargo loaded in connection with the construction work near the place where the accident occurred, and at the time of the accident, it was easy to secure the view at around 13:50, the time of the accident. If it is determined that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle could not pass due to the defendant vehicle, the driver of the vehicle would have requested the driver of the vehicle to move the vehicle or could have used the bypassing road. However, without taking such measures, it cannot be deemed that the defendant vehicle has contributed to the accident of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is groundless.