1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is the driver of the early stable truck of C5 tons (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's train"). The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the E bus belonging to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant's bus").

Plaintiff

On October 16, 2018, the boarding car conflicts with the Defendant’s bus located in the first lane, which was located in the direction of the Siscopian (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s bus was destroyed at the middle of the left side of loading, and the Defendant’s bus was destroyed by the front side and door of the right side.

On the day of the accident, the Plaintiff spent KRW 111,950 for medical expenses from G Hospital on October 17, 2018. From October 18, 2018 to October 30, 2018, the Plaintiff spent KRW 841,960 for medical expenses after receiving hospitalized treatment from H Hospital at H Hospital.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and evidence Nos. 8, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the plaintiff's argument that the accident of this case occurred due to negligence while changing the course of the plaintiff's two-lanes, and caused the plaintiff's loss of medical expenses, etc., so the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 4,102,390 won (=11,950 won 11,950 won) and damages compensation 3,00,000 won (=4,102,390 won) and damages for delay.

Judgment

In full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant bus driver caused the instant accident due to negligence while changing the course to a two-lane, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the evidence Nos. 1 and 8 states that the plaintiff truck had contacted with the defendant bus operated in the first lane beyond part of the bus line, and the video of the evidence No. 1 corresponds to this.