1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by adopted evidence, and determined that the Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident, taking into account the following: (a) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was unable to take a specific work plan by taking into account the weight of the figures or the weight of the figures of the instant mid-term season while inserting the instant mid-term season; (b) the Plaintiff, as a lessee, should have sufficiently shared detailed information on the purpose of the work using the instant mid-term season, character, object, and the instant mid-term season, etc., at least closely agreed with the pilotJ; (c) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had sufficiently undergone such process; and (c) the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to take part of the instant accident, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff’s signal number M was against the work guidelines.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding negligence or duty of care or proximate causal relation in tort, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

B. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff was insufficient to recognize that the damage incurred by delay in air caused by the instant accident was KRW 634,541,756.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope of compensation for damages or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.