The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where the amount of damages is limited in light of the idea of the damage compensation system, the fair apportionment of damages in consideration of all the circumstances, the fact-finding of the grounds for mitigation of liability or setting its ratio is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da92466 Decided June 11, 2009, etc.). In response to the judgment of the first instance court, the lower court: (a) based on the determination of the first instance court, the Plaintiff was negligent in neglecting his/her duty to accurately cancel all the locking devices and to verify the state of cancellation thereof; and (b) determined that such negligence caused the instant accident, and limited the Defendant’s liability ratio to 40%.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the grounds for limitation of liability and its ratio, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.