1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence No. 1,2,6,7,9,17; Eul evidence No. 7; and the purport of the entire pleadings of the first instance appraiser C.

A. B purchased one of the new 2010 4.5 tons B B B B B B, and registered, the concept includes both wheelss for the purpose of avoiding over-control by communicating the wheels on the ground and distributing the load into the ground (the over-control is based on the total weight of the vehicle and the weight of the vehicle) and the brakes with both wheelss.

The defendant seems to have not been illegal at the time as a specialized company such as the installation of a dial stable.

(3) One (heat axis) and the one which has been released with the original 2 axiss installed, was installed with a quizzle, and the 1st axis was installed below the driver's seat, and the 2nd axis was installed below the loaded box.

The cargo is installed on the back part of the 2nd unit of the cargo vehicle.

B. As above, the freight truck with a variable (hereinafter “the freight truck in this case”) was registered as “A” and “The name of the Defendant who installed a variable for the Korean specialty Technology” on June 4, 2010 and operated by “B. 4.5 tons truck.”

C. However, on October 1, 2013, the instant cargo was destroyed by a fire in the part of the right wheels of the instant variable, which occurred in the front line, where the instant truck drivened from the front line at the time of Suncheon-Mayang Highway, and the instant truck drivened from the front line. As such, the instant truck was destroyed by a fire in the part of the right wheels of the said bridge at the speed of 203 strings, loading boxes, etc. on the surface of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

With respect to the instant cargo vehicle, the Plaintiff secured self-motor vehicle damage.