1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts of the written judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to 3 pages of the written judgment; and

(2) The judgment of subsection (2) shall be made in the following manner:

According to the evidence No. 8 of the judgment No. 8, the plaintiff's driver's seat and steering chief of the plaintiff's vehicle may be recognized as replacing the air bags and air bags due to the accident of this case. However, the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap's evidence No. 39 and 40 are comprehensively taken into account, and the following circumstances, namely, the accident of this case is that the plaintiff did not have any upper part on the face and head part of the plaintiff's seat, and that the plaintiff replaced the air bags on the front part of the driver's seat of the plaintiff's vehicle, it cannot be concluded that the air bags operated on the side of the driver's seat of this case at the time of the accident of this case ( even according to the evidence No. 8 of this case, only the air bags related to the exchange of air bags, are included in the repair cost statement of the plaintiff's vehicle of this case

() As alleged by the Defendant, if the air bags of the driver’s seat without wearing the safety belt were left, due to powder explosion and sudden expansion of the air bags, the Plaintiff’s body (fice, ice, neck, and chest) would remain. The evidence Nos. 7 and 10 of the Plaintiff’s body (fice) taken of the front glass hold of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the safety belt of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s driver’s seat is unclear, and in light of the video of Gap’s evidence No. 10 taken of the scene immediately after the accident, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety belt at the time of the accident only with the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.”