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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the claim for damages is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the judgment on the claim for limitation of liability is affirmed as follows. As such, this part of the judgment is

(C) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was negligent on the ground that, when the signal of the crosswalk was changed to a pedestrian signal at the time, the Plaintiff did not look at the front of the horse, and the crosswalk was cut off, and therefore, the Plaintiff was at fault.

However, the actual contents of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including the street number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, together with the overall purport of oral arguments, are as follows: ① in the direction of the vehicle in question as shown in the annexed Form No. 1 accident scene, and the crossing was connected immediately before and after the intersection was opened. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was standing in the crosswalk immediately after the crossing according to the pedestrian signal. ② The defendant vehicle was trying to walk the above intersection because the vehicle signal had already been changed to yellow signal before the intersection at the time, while the crossing was changed to a yellow signal, and passed the crosswalk immediately after the intersection at the location of the accident site; ③ there was a central bus stop at the location of the accident site as shown in the annexed Form No. 1 accident scene, so it could completely interfere with the defendant vehicle's vehicle driver at the time of the accident, and thus, it could completely interfere with the defendant vehicle's access from the intersection at the time of the accident.