1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 12:00 on March 24, 201, B: (a) vehicles C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”)

(B) The Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle, had the front on-and-off signal, etc. in Gwangju City go to turn to the left from G from the Fastro to G in the direction of the Fastro. Since there was a private-distance intersection where the crosswalk is installed, in making the left to the left, the Plaintiff, while neglecting the duty of care to safely check the front left and turn to the left at the right time, failed to turn to the left, sent the crosswalk in the above intersection to the left from the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 10 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability is, however, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the testimony of the witness Eul and witness Eul of the first instance trial, it is recognized that the plaintiff at the time of the accident of this case was crossing the crosswalk without attaching earphones, and the plaintiff was negligent in crossing the crosswalk without neglecting it, even though it is necessary for the plaintiff to take into account the safety at the time of crossing the crosswalk in the intersection where traffic control is not performed by signal, etc., but the plaintiff's fault was also the cause of the accident of this case.

Therefore, in light of the Plaintiff’s negligence and the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 90%.

2. Except as otherwise stated below, each of the relevant items of the annexed damages calculation sheet shall be subject to the scope of liability for damages.