1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs who are ordered to pay additional amounts below.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The attached damages calculation table of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the attached damages calculation table of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Part 3, 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied in the following parts: "I see that I am safe mother as well as that I am safe mother as well as that I am safe."

Inasmuch as the Defendant committed an act of neglecting his/her duty to ensure the safety of himself/herself by taking advantage of the safety mother, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 90%. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that such circumstance should also be taken into consideration as the Deceased’s negligence, even though the Deceased was negligent in demanding the safe driving of the vehicle as his/her passenger, even though he/she did so. Although he/she took the vehicle without compensation, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as having a duty of care to urge the driver to ensure the safe operation. Unless there were special circumstances, such as where the driver of the vehicle could have been aware that the vehicle might have a significant concern about the risk of the occurrence of the accident due to the vehicle’s sudden driving or other reasons, the mere passenger of the vehicle cannot be said to have a duty of care to urge the driver to ensure safe operation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da60769, Apr. 26, 2012).

There is no evidence to prove special circumstances, such as that there was a considerable concern about the risk of an accident due to any or other reason, and rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, No. 1, 3, 4, and 9, E is a process of sudden acceleration of Obaba.