1. The judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, depending on the extension of the claim for the counterclaim by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts after being dismissed or added, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendants are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, and evidence Nos. 10, 9 through 19 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) submitted by the plaintiff and the defendants in this court

In light of each description and the result of the appraiser's appraisal of this Court, the fact-finding and determination of the first instance court is legitimate, and there is no such error as the Plaintiff and the Defendants asserted as the grounds for appeal). 2. From 15th to 17th 17th 4th 15th 17th 4th 2.

2) Under a mutual aid agreement, the Defendant Federation paid the amount indicated in the “amount of expenditure” column (the total amount of N-related payments of KRW 362,108,030, total amount of KRW 1,054,35,370, total amount of KRW 28,670,000, total amount of KRW 140,286,300, total amount of payment related to M-related payments of KRW 140,286, 300, total amount of payment related to L-related payments of KRW 2,980,00, amount of payment related to the Defendant C-related payments of KRW 8,660,00, total amount of KRW 1,597,00,000, total amount of KRW 362,108,60,000, total amount of payment related to the Defendant C-related payments of KRW 1,597,30,000).

The phrase “B” and “S 1, 2, 6, and 8” are added between “B” and “S 19”. At the last six pages, the following is added. The Defendants asserted that “the Defendants’ negligence of aiding and abetting the Plaintiff’s vehicle crew members to drive under the influence of H and neglecting the safety labelling line should be considered additionally.” The Plaintiff’s negligence of the Defendant’s taxi crew members should be considered additionally.