The defendant.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6-3, 4, and 10 as well as the overall purport of the arguments, the defendant, around 23:00 on May 13, 2013, is likely to get off from a taxi without paying a charge, even if the defendant, under the influence of alcohol, arrived at the destination of the plaintiff's cab operated and arrived at the destination under the influence of the National Rehabilitation Institute located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City.

The plaintiff's face is cut one time by drinking, and the plaintiff's face is cut off by walking side, and the plaintiff suffered from her ambl's seat, and ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's ambl's amb

B. However, the limitation of liability is limited to the defendant's liability for damages from the perspective of fair burden of damages in consideration of the circumstances of the instant accident, including the fact that the degree of tangible power exercised by the defendant does not seem to be more serious than the injury, and it is difficult to deem that it is reasonable to charge the defendant with all responsibility for the damage incurred therefrom.

2. Grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the scope of damages are as follows.

In addition to the following cases, the first instance court's reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 2 (No. 3 to No. 6 of the first instance court's decision) (No. 6 of the first instance court's decision). Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

E. The Defendant exercised 29 times as well as the Plaintiff’s physical power, and the Plaintiff did not seem to have committed a mistake in the process, and the Plaintiff treated the injury by the Defendant due to its age.