2. Judgment without holding any pleadings (Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act, which is partially dismissed, intends to take into account the same care as the obligee’s in relation to the occurrence of damages, in a case where the obligee fails to exercise his/her duty required under the good faith principle, based on the equitable principle. Thus, even if a simple negligence is established, if the damage was caused or expanded due to it, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the victim. If the victim’s negligence is acknowledged, the court shall take this into account in determining liability for damages and the amount thereof, and even if the obligor fails to claim for negligence on the part

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da30113 delivered on October 25, 1996, etc.). The victims who paid insurance money to the Plaintiff are also playing together with the Defendant and the new wall, while being aware of the Defendant’s without permission and driving without permission, and did not urge the safe driving without any restriction. Some victims did not wear a safety bell, and it is reasonable to deem that the victims’ mistake caused the occurrence and expansion of the instant damages. Accordingly, it is reasonable to consider the Defendant’s liability for damages, but it is limited to 60% of the Defendant’s liability.

Calculation: 62,417,780 won ¡¿ 60% = 37,450,668 won