1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be additionally paid under paragraph (2).

1. The grounds for this part of the court’s liability for damages are stated in this part, the second instance judgment of the court of first instance;

(b).

In addition to changing the part of the claim as follows, it is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

B. According to the above recognition of liability and limitation 1), the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, has died due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, is liable for the damage inflicted on the deceased and the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle. In this regard, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case takes place at the distance intersection at night, and the accident occurred due to the whole mistake of the deceased who was caused by the defendant vehicle. Thus, the defendant is not liable for the driver of the defendant vehicle.

Therefore, in addition to the purport of the foregoing evidence, the accident in this case occurred in the vicinity of the intersection at night where the driver's view is restricted, but the accident in this case is a sideway of about 6-7 meters away from the intersection where the accident in this case is connected as to the road, and it appears that the driver of the defendant vehicle could have sufficiently anticipated that there may be pedestrians or other obstacles to the accident in this case. The driver of the defendant vehicle in this case, while making the left turn at the time of the accident in this case, did not take necessary measures such as checking the surrounding situation or high level of the accident, and did not take necessary measures to confirm the body of the deceased and continue to proceed again after the accident in this case. Considering that the evidence submitted by the defendant alone, the driver of the vehicle in this case fulfilled his duty of care, such as the duty of front-time warning at the time of the accident in this case.

It is readily concluded that the instant accident could not be avoided even if he/she fulfilled his/her duty of care.