1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff A and B, which constitutes the following additional payments.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the Defendant’s assertion on the limitation of liability is as follows, except for the supplement of the following determination, and thus, this part of the judgment of the first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[C] The defendant asserts that the defendant's responsibility should be limited to up to 80% since the plaintiff Gap neglected his duty of speeding over 61 to 70 km speed above the speed limit, and the plaintiff Gap neglected his duty of front-time watching at a speed exceeding 61 to 70 km, and the damage of this case occurred or expanded due to the plaintiff's mistake that the deceased did not wear a safety bell, which led to the plaintiff's failure to wear a safety bell.

However, inasmuch as a motor vehicle driver who operates a road with a central line along his/her own lane is believed to maintain his/her own lane, barring any special circumstance that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other motor vehicle, the other motor vehicle does not have the duty of care to drive the motor vehicle by expectation of the other motor vehicle when entering the central line (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da39158, Jan. 24, 1997). Thus, the accident of this case is caused by the defendant's vehicle going beyond the opposite lane because the vehicle was broomd and the accident of this case occurred in the course of going beyond the opposite lane. Although the plaintiff's vehicle did not observe the restricted speed at the time of procheon, it cannot be said that there was a causal relationship between the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage.

In addition, even if the record is reviewed again, it is difficult to recognize the mistake of the plaintiff as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the scope of the liability for damages are expanding the claim in the first instance trial, “The calculation is as follows, but it recognizes KRW 384,086,905, which the plaintiff sought.”