2. The part to which the correction or addition is made shall be as follows: 2.B. (3) [2.12 to 4.2] of the first instance court:

(B) The Defendant asserts that, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s negligence is at least 70% since the instant traffic accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s bridge was coming out of the yellow domin line, which is the boundary of the lane from the side, the location of the Plaintiff’s ground for accident No. 3, and the Plaintiff’s ground for appeal that, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s fault is at least 70%.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence and the entire purport of oral argument are as follows: (i) even if the Defendant’s motion pictures No. 4-4 of evidence No. 4, which were alleged to be the form at the time of the accident, the length of the studio is almost the same from the studio to the yellow-ray, which is the boundary of the lane from the 14-year-old female students at the time of the accident; and (ii) it is difficult to view that the studio of the bridge, except the upper half of the body part of the Plaintiff A, a female student at the 14-year-old age-old at the time of the accident, was exposed to the shock of the roadway as the Defendant’s shock point as claimed by the Defendant; and (iii) H, a police officer, at the time of the accident, testified to the effect that “A was infected with a concrete protective wall that is not the road floor at the time of the accident” in the first instance trial, and (iv) At the time the police officer was transferred to the hospital (H). 2).