1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the basic facts, whether the defendant’s liability is recognized, and the limitation of liability is set forth in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following dismissals as follows.

(15% of the defendant's negligence) [15% of the defendant's negligence] (In full view of the facts recognized in front of the second defendant's responsibility and the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the accidents mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the accident in this case seems to have the largest cause for the deceased to be unable to look at "the signal change of the crosswalk and the proceeding to the U-turn or left-hand turn of the front vehicle" due to his negligence in performing his

On the other hand, however, the deceased had been proceeding immediately behind the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s driver had the intent to make a U-turn before the U-turn area, and even if he could clearly express his intention to be a U-turn at a speed to reduce the speed before the U.S. area, the Defendant’s driver is proceeding nearly at the same speed as before the designated area of U.S. on the crosswalk.

In accordance with the signal change, the driver of the defendant vehicle attempted to immediately turn back at the starting point of the U.S. driver's license, and the following method was likely to mislead the defendant vehicle to continue to turn to the left at the front intersection, and in particular, since it is difficult to control the U.S. driver's vehicle at the Oral Sea, it is necessary to accelerate the driver by clearly expressing the U.S. driver's intention earlier. In light of the above, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the defendant vehicle that neglected such duty.

Furthermore, the accident of this case had a significant impact on the Defendant vehicle driver’s failure to immediately stop the accident until the death of the deceased, and the expansion of such damage was also negligent in the Defendant vehicle.