1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “victim”)

(1) The Defendant is the owner of the D Poter truck (hereinafter referred to as “Dam Poter”).

(2) On November 7, 2016, when the damaged vehicle driven one-lane of the three-lanes in the direction of the Sin-si of Busan Metropolitan City on November 7, 2016, in the direction of the Sin-si in Busan Metropolitan City, the object of the Arinal ster, adjacent to the Gun-si in the direction of the Sin-si of Busan Metropolitan City, i.e., the front glass of the damaged vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,214,080 in total to the E Service Center for the repair cost of damaged vehicles (hereinafter “instant accident”). [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s entries or images, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 9, 10, and Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case is the cause of the claim of this case. The plaintiff asserts that the driver of the sea-going vehicle was responsible for paying insurance money corresponding to the amount of compensation for physical damage suffered by the plaintiff, since the accident of this case was caused by the driver of the sea-going vehicle's contact with the Central Separation Zone and the driver of the sea-going vehicle fell on the left side of the sea-going vehicle, or due to the negligence of operation adjacent to the Central Separation Zone, and due to the accident of this case, the driver of the sea-going vehicle was responsible for paying insurance money to the damaged vehicle. 2) The defendant did not decrease the water received from the sea-going vehicle, and it was found that the driver of the sea-going vehicle was not able to see the non-objects away from the road, and even if it was discovered, there was an inevitable circumstance that could not cause damage, so the defendant is not liable for paying insurance money of this case to the defendant.

The defendant is at fault of the accident of this case, even if there is negligence of the accident of this case, since the damaged vehicle did not secure the safety distance properly, the ratio of negligence of the damaged vehicle is 50%.