1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the “Restrictions on Liability” is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following in the last part of the “Restrictions on Liability”, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The Defendant alleged that the Defendant’s negligence on the road while under the influence of alcohol at night is reasonable, and therefore, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability ratio due to the instant accident to 60% or less (the Plaintiff’s negligence 40% or more). However, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the litigation process, including the background of the instant accident, the place and time of the accident, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s negligence, and the degree of the negligence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s driver, and in particular, the location of the instant accident was a passage without distinction between the vehicular road and the sidewalk located in the village market, and the passage of pedestrians at the time is sufficiently anticipated, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to 80%. The circumstance asserted by the Defendant

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, each of the corresponding items of the Schedule of Calculation of Compensation for Damages shall be as follows, and in principle, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated monthly, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

It shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the evidence mentioned above, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 13, 16, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers), the result of physical commission to the head of an amusement university hospital at the court of the first instance and the results of fact inquiry, the result of each order issued by the court of the first instance and the head of this court to submit tax information to the court of the first instance and the head of this court, significant facts, experience and whole pleadings.