1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 126,545,813 and its related amount from November 4, 201 to April 16, 2015.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the liability for damages are as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, in addition to the use of the fifth to sixth to 18 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

Then, it is insufficient to reverse the recognition by only some description of No. 5-49 of the evidence A and the testimony of K witness of the party is insufficient. 2) The accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of driving an insured vehicle in violation of the signal by F, or due to the negligence of the deceased, or due to the negligence of the deceased, in violation of the signal.

In full view of the following circumstances that are acknowledged as follows based on the evidence Nos. 5-40 (Partial part), 41 (Partial part), 42, 44, 45, 47, 49 (Partial part), evidence Nos. 6-4, evidence Nos. 6-1, evidence Nos. 9-1, and evidence Nos. 12-1, evidence No. 12-1, evidence No. 1, witness He and G, witness I’s testimony, part of witness I’s testimony of the first instance trial, inquiry results to the Busan District Police Agency of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole arguments, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident of this case shocks the deceased who was crossing the crosswalk pursuant to witness No. 5-1 by negligence on the operation of the insured vehicle in violation of the signal, and the recognition of witness No. 40 (Partial part), 41 (Partial part), 49 (1), 1, 7-2, 9-1, and 2-2 of the witness evidence No.

① As a witness of the instant accident, H, who prepared a written statement on February 2012 and testified at the court of first instance, was not more than five to ten seconds after hearing the first accident signals at the time of the instant accident.