1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

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

2. No more than 4 pages 1 of the 4th portion, “where it is deemed that the fact of the occurrence of damage has occurred, but it is extremely difficult to prove the specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case, the court may determine a reasonable amount as damages in full view of all the circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act).”

The 5th parallel 7th parallel 15th parallel are as follows.

“Along with the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s damages should be deemed as the exchange value of the instant wheels vehicle at the time of the instant accident, unless there are special circumstances to recognize that it exceeds exchange value in light of ordinary social norms, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s damages should be deemed as the exchange value of the instant wheels vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and the exchange value of the instant wheels vehicle should be deemed to be 12 months, and the remaining lifespan should be deemed to be 12 months, and the remaining lifespan should be deemed to be 12 months, and the cost of the repair specialist’s service should be determined to be reduced according to the rate of fixed rate by applying 2.1%, which is the ratio of attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, to the estimate of repair cost and the repair cost estimate submitted by the Plaintiff.

According to this, two months after the acquisition, the instant two-month vehicle affected by the instant accident.