2. As follows, the part added or dried up to five parallels from the date of appraisal in the third 2 parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be conducted from the date of appraisal:

Around 5.9 years’ forecast was expected. The Plaintiff’s legal representative of the previous lawsuit shall be deemed to be September 8, 2013 based on the results of the said appraisal, and the Plaintiff’s claim for lost income, future treatment expenses, nursing expenses, etc. was expanded on the basis of the date. The Plaintiff’s legal representative shall add “A evidence and B/6 (including the serial number)” to the three-dimensional statement in the first instance judgment [based on recognition].

5 to 15 parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be 5 to 6 parallels as follows:

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s attorney recognized the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s name on September 8, 2013 based on the results of the foregoing appraisal in the previous lawsuit, and in fact, the Plaintiff was aware of the occurrence of a new damage from the time when the Plaintiff remains alive after the expiration date. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on September 6, 2016, for which three years have not passed from the statute of limitations, the Defendant’s defense of the statute of limitations was without merit. 6th to 17th to 19th to 19th to the judgment of the first instance judgment.

“On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff, as well as the driver, committed an error of crossing a two-lane road in the right direction beyond the center line at night where the view of the driver is limited, and such error also constitutes a cause of the occurrence of an accident and the expansion of damages. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 50% (the Plaintiff asserted that an agreement to set the rate of negligence of the Plaintiff at 35% was reached in the previous lawsuit, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.