1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The grounds for this part of the claim for damages are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the claim is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

At the third bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The defendant alleged that he did not conduct a pelvis diagnosis at F Council members, but the F Council members’ medical records (Evidence B No. 3) include the defendant’s pelle diagnosis (X-ray FIular F.).”

In the fourth first instance judgment, the Plaintiff’s statement cannot be deemed to contravene the Plaintiff’s fact-finding that the Plaintiff’s wife was rubber plates at the time of field inspection, on the following grounds: “A fact-finding certificate (Evidence A No. 11) written by the Plaintiff’s wife is very specific, and its credibility is high. At the time of site inspection conducted at the time of over four years after the occurrence of the instant accident. As such, it is reasonable for the possibility that the instant play facilities and the structure of the instant launchings would change. As such, even if there was a plastic material device at the time of field inspection, even if there was a plastic material device, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s statement that the instant

Part 11 to 15 of the first instance judgment shall be advanced as follows.

⑤ 피고는 원고가 F의원에서 잔디밭에서 삐끗하였다고 진술한 점을 이유로 원고가 이 사건 발판이 아닌 다른 곳에서 본인의 과실로 다친 것이라고 주장한다.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s statement was installed on the Ptdry field, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s statement is contrary to objective truth, and the Plaintiff’s statement was false solely on the ground that the Plaintiff, who was suffering from the alley of a copy of the right-hand syke, received medical treatment immediately after the instant accident and did not accurately describe the instant syke.