1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows.

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the parts used or added as mentioned in the same paragraph, they shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main

B. Article 566 subparag. 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is a damage claim that infringes on another person's body due to gross negligence, and Article 566 subparag. 3 or 4 of the Act on Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy is a damage claim that has arisen from an intentional tort or a tort that causes gross negligence, and Article 566 subparag. 3 or 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is further amended.

Article 566 subparag. 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides for the part of the first instance judgment’s Article 566 subparag. 4 of the Act on Debtor’s Recovery and Bankruptcy, and Article 566 subparag. 4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides for the “liability for damage caused by a tort committed by an obligor intentionally,” and Article 566 subparag. 4 provides for the “liability for damage caused by a tort committed by an obligor’s gross negligence,” and on the other hand, the term “serious negligence” in this context is construed as “non-exclusive liability.”

In the third part of the judgment of the first instance, "the claim of this case" in the 17th part of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to "the compensation for damages caused by an intentional act by the debtor" or "the compensation for damages"

On May 6, 2020, the appellate brief submitted by the defendant on May 6, 2020, stated that the plaintiff was in the state of "unlicensed driving" at the time of the above traffic accident. However, even if it appears to be a clerical error in the "unlicensed driving", according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 5 and all pleadings, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 5, the plaintiff had a valid driver's license at the time of the above traffic accident.