1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) A around 11:15 December 1, 2014, B (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

) An accident involving the back portion of the CM5, which was driven by the driver of the vehicle in the Cheongdong-ri, Cheongdong-ri, Cheongdong-ri, Gyeonggi-do, along the three-lanes of the four-lane road located at the 386 km Myeon-ri, Cheongdong-ri, Cheongdong-ri, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as “instant prior accident”).

2) However, the driver E of the instant truck (hereinafter “Defendant”) was driving in three lanes on the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and was stopped due to the instant preceding accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged by shocking the rear part of the instant Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was stopped due to the instant preceding accident.

(3) The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business operator of the instant Defendant’s vehicle. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

B. According to the above findings of recognition 1), since the accident of this case was caused by the negligence that occurred while E, who is the driver of the defendant vehicle of this case, was negligent in moving-out, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator. (2) The accident of this case occurred during the day, and if the driver of this case operated in a state where he maintained an appropriate safe distance by complying with the regulatory speed, the accident of this case could prevent the accident of this case. And immediately after the accident of this case occurred immediately after the accident of this case, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle of this case did not have sufficient time to take other follow-up measures, and therefore, the ratio of negligence of the defendant's vehicle of this case should be higher than 70%, and the defendant's fault ratio should be more than 20%.) The defendant's plaintiff's driver of the plaintiff vehicle of this case