1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: Gap's evidence Nos. 20 to 22, 32 to 34, which is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion concerning the lost income, are rejected; and the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the ground for the judgment, except where the plaintiff's assertion concerning the lost income is used or added in part as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. A statement of calculation of damages in attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance which is written or added shall be replaced by that of this judgment;

Part III through No. 3 of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

In light of the fact that “I, however, have a duty of care to drive without a license and to proceed with other traffic while entering the intersection where a yellow flickering signal is installed, E was negligent in neglecting this fact even if I could have discovered the Defendant’s vehicle before reaching the point of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff was seated with the Plaintiff Ortoba without wearing a safety mother, and the Plaintiff’s negligence as well as the driver’s negligence is reasonable in terms of the concept of fairness by considering not only the Plaintiff’s negligence as a free passenger but also the negligence of E, a driver, as well as the Plaintiff’s negligence. Such negligence is determined to have contributed significantly to the occurrence and expansion of the damages caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 60% since the Defendant’s negligence is limited to the 4th main part of the judgment of the first instance court as follows.

Although the plaintiff asserts that the condition of the plaintiff's physical examination after the physical examination in the first instance court remains 40 to 70%, the plaintiff's statement in Gap's evidence Nos. 16 through 19 and 25 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. The plaintiff's 8th of the first instance judgment Nos. 17 (Exclusion from Table) through 11 of the 9th of the 8th of the first instance judgment is dismissed as follows.