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

1. Grounds for the court's explanation in this part of the basic facts are the second side of the judgment of the first instance.

1. Since part of the entry is the same, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Grounds for the court’s explanation in this part of the parties’ assertion are the third side of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Since part of the entry is the same, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. The court's explanation in this part of this case is the fourth side of the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. Since part of the entry is the same, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. As to the limitation of liability for damages, the Defendant asserts that H’s above negligence should be taken into account, but the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, as there is no evidence to acknowledge it, since H’s assertion that it interferes with overtaking by means of competition by raising the ozone layer and speed of C in order to overtake or by blocking the front of the above Lao.

However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 15 and 16, testimony and overall purport of evidence Nos. 15 and Ha of the first instance trial witness H, i.e., in a traffic accident report (Evidence No. 15) in relation to the instant accident, “H’s Twitler observed signal violations and rapid change at the bottom of the e.g. B and continuously testified to H as one lane for the scene of the accident.” H appears to have been aware of the abnormal state situation before the said accident, and accordingly, C should have been given special attention to the state of the main state of the accident. ② According to the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial witness, it is deemed sufficiently possible to ensure that the steel colon did not move down even at a certain level, and the starting point of the accident after receiving the signal of H at the time of the said accident is not much enough.