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

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the cause of the claim is as stated in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, inasmuch as the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance is stated in paragraphs 1 through 3, except where the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance is written as follows.

The third written judgment of the court of first instance is referred to as "a certificate of change in name of signboards" in the 11th written judgment of the court of first instance as "a certificate of change in name of signboards escape."

B. The 5/12 percentage per annum on the 8th sentence of the first instance court shall be the 5/12 percentage per month.

C. The “9,539,970 won” of the 15th sentence of the first instance judgment is deemed to be “8,726,267 won.”

In accordance with Section 17 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court, "(i) Gender: Gender: Gender" shall be considered as "gender: Women."

E. 23.8% of the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the accident of this case, 21.77% [excluding 30% of the plaintiff's ability to contribute to the escape of the plaintiff's memorial signboard and 30% of his/her ability to contribute to the development of 7th century] for two years : 21.77% [31.1% of the plaintiff's ability to contribute to the development of 31.1% (the rate of 17% of the plaintiff's ability to contribute to 17% of his/her Mabromothal Melithal 2-A-2-a shall apply to the plaintiff's Mabromothal pathy, and the combined rate of labor disability calculated as to the non-oper's early disability] x 0.7 (excluding 30% of the plaintiff's ability to contribute to the escape of the king witness and the Johovah's Handn. 30% of the judgment of first instance on the 92 and 3rd.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on limitation of liability for damages

A. The defendant's assertion that ① the plaintiff had already been aware of the escape and compromise of the 4-5 severe central confluence signboards between the 5th century before the operation of this case, and the plaintiff had a king certificate suspected of causing the 5th century. ② The plaintiff performed the operation of this case to temporarily reduce the pain.