1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for a decision on additional matters alleged by the defendant as the reason for appeal, as set forth in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) below. Thus, this Court cited this case as it is included in summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (a) On the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part in which it was used shall be subject to a single-accident.

(b) No. 3 of the first instance judgment, No. 7 of the first instance judgment, "No. 13" was added to "No. 13".

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The part of the damaged part of the road of this case concerning the damage of the road of this case as asserted by the Defendant 1 on the defects in the preservation and management of the road of this case is merely the shape where cement packaging part of the road of this case was cut down, and cannot be seen as the art hole. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the deceased lost his ability to enjoy her view during the change of the lane due to Art Hall

Even if there is a Art Hall, the existence alone does not necessarily lead to a threat to the normal passage of the Oral Ba, and the size and size of the Art Hall should fall under the shape that may interfere with the normal passage of the motor vehicle. However, in the vicinity of the point where the instant accident occurred, such an extent of the Art Hall could not be found. As such, the cause of the instant accident cannot be seen as having been caused.

The judgment of the first instance does not judge the cause of the deceased's ozone by the method of evidence actively, and there is no other cause, so it shall be viewed as an accident caused by the Art Hall.