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

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part as to whether the defendant's employee is exempt from user's liability from liability from 16th to 18th 8th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e).

Even in cases where a tort committed by an employee appears to fall within the scope of the execution of duties in appearance, if the victim himself/herself knew, or was unaware due to gross negligence, that the act committed by an employee does not constitute an act of execution of duties by the supervisor in lieu of the employer or employer, he/she shall not be held liable for the employer. In such cases, the victim's gross negligence exempted from the employer's liability is required to the general public by believing that the act committed by the employee was committed within his/her authority, even though the other party to the transaction knew, that the act committed by the employee would not have been lawfully performed within his/her authority.