1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Plaintiffs, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The ground for the responsibility (1) is that the instant intersection is an intersection without a signal apparatus, and traffic control was not performed at the time of the accident. The driving direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is 6.6 meters in total in two lanes, and the road where the Defendant’s vehicle was in progress is 4.6 meters in one lane without a median line. (2) The instant accident occurred that conflict between the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle before the Defendant’s vehicle passes through the intermediate part of the instant intersection.

C) Before entering the instant intersection, the J temporarily stopped and proceeded at a speed of 15.6km per hour, and entered the intersection 6.4 meters per hour, and the collision speed is 14.8km per hour. D) The speed of the Plaintiff’s front road is 70km per hour, and Plaintiff A entered the intersection at a speed of 86.5km per hour.

[Reasons for Recognition] The driver of any motor vehicle who intends to enter an intersection where the traffic is not controlled by the court of the first instance as a result of the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 7, 10, and 13 of the evidence No. 1, the result of the appraisal by appraiser N in the court of the first instance as a result of the appraisal by appraiser N in the court of the first instance, and the purport of the entire pleadings, shall slowly proceed when the width of the road where the motor vehicle is traveling is wider than that of the road where the vehicle is traveling, and when there are other motor vehicles who intend to enter the intersection from the road where the width is wider, they shall yield the course

(Article 26 (2) of the Road Traffic Act. According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred before the defendant vehicle passes through half of the intersection of this case and it cannot be deemed that the J driving the defendant vehicle has entered the intersection of this case. Thus, the vehicle of this case shall work at the intersection of this case.