1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[C] [Attachment 1] The "attached Form 1 Calculation Table" shall be deemed to be the "attached Form 1 Calculation Table" in this judgment, and the "income table according to the attached Form 2" shall be deemed to be the "income table according to the attached Form 2" in this judgment, and the "attached Form 3 Actual Retirement Allowance Calculation Table" shall be deemed to be the "attached Form 3" in this judgment.

The third party's "C" clause is as follows.

C. However, according to the above evidence, the deceased was limited to the defendant's liability by taking account of the following facts: (a) the deceased, as at the time of the accident, was driven under the influence of alcohol level 0.084% of the driver of the defendant vehicle; (b) the deceased was driven under the influence of alcohol level 0.084%; (c) the deceased's place of residence and the place of residence of D are different from the direction of the deceased in light of the following: (a) he was driven to drive the vehicle in order to drive the vehicle to drive the vehicle in his house with flasssing and singing, etc., and he was able to take the flasing on his own safety; and (d) the deceased was flad with the defendant's vehicle for her returning home; and (d) the deceased was flasing the accident of this case.

(A) The Defendant asserts that the deceased did not wear a safety bell, but it is difficult to conclude that the deceased did not wear a safety bell solely on the ground that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle and the first passenger were dead on the back part of the deceased, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion for the failure to wear a safety bell is rejected).