1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 18,591,902 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from August 26, 2013 to February 14, 2020.

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

2. A statement of calculation of damages in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is added or added, shall be replaced by the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The 2nd to 3rd shall be followed by the following:

The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and evidence mentioned above, namely, the area line at the edge of the road where the accident in this case occurred is permitted to stop within five minutes. Thus, in general, in the defendant vehicle, it would have been reasonably anticipated that the passenger could get alight from the vehicle, and in the case where the bicycle driver passes the right side to the right side of the vehicle stopped, the plaintiff must go slowly or temporarily stop in consideration of the safety of the passenger getting alight or getting alight (see Article 21(2) of the Road Traffic Act), but the plaintiff is proceeding to the right side of the vehicle in this case and eventually, the accident in this case occurred, and the cause and circumstance of the accident in this case, road situation, and the degree and degree of the collision of each vehicle, etc. are limited to 50% in full view of the defendant's liability.

[3] The latter disability: 14.5% of the labor ability loss rate, and the Han Market Sea (Application of Mabrid disability Evaluation Table IV-1, vocational coefficient 6, 1/2) of the first instance court's physical examination conducted by the first instance court. According to the result of the first instance court's physical examination conducted by the first instance court, the plaintiff was in the second instance court's physical examination conducted by the first instance court, and it is not possible to improve due to the plan for operation conducted, which falls under Section IV-1 of the Mabrid Disability Evaluation Table.