1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasons for this part of the claim for damages are as follows, and this part of the claim is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the court’s reasoning is the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment

The 3rd 12-17 parallels are as follows.

"The actual substance" is that the plaintiff A, who is the driver of Ortoba, has left the left in the same direction, is a vehicle that had been done in the same direction, and there is a negligence in doing so even though he had been able to take into account the condition of the defendant's vehicle that had been done in the preceding direction, and such negligence of the plaintiff A had influenced the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages.

As such, the defendant's liability is limited to 80% by taking this into account.

The plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, as the accident occurred by the defendant vehicle running on the two-lanes of the three-lanes, the two-lanes of the way to enter the alley, the plaintiff did not have any additional care as to the accident of this case. However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant vehicle and the plaintiff Gap Gap did not continue to proceed concurrently with the accident of this case, and the defendant vehicle proceeding in the direction of the front road and left the right at the Senes hotel shooting distance, and then the accident of this case occurred during the course of moving to the right at the right 89-lane away from the above shooting distance to about 20 meters away from the above shooting distance, while the defendant vehicle tried to turn to the right at the right 89-lane away from the above shooting distance, and the plaintiff Orala was going to go to the defendant vehicle after the left her while the defendant vehicle, who is the preceding vehicle, was driving to the left her, and even if the accident of this case occurred, the accident of this case did not occur.

In other words, this case is a serious accident to the defendant's vehicle that the plaintiff Orala, who is the latter vehicle, was absent from the aspect of the defendant's vehicle in the three-lane direction.