1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified upon the application for succession participation in the trial as follows:

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows: the defendant's "defendant" in the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as "defendant's succeeding intervenor"; and the defendant's succeeding intervenor's ground for appeal is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the part concerning which the defendant's succeeding intervenor contests as the ground for appeal is alleged. Thus, it

2. Determination as to the grounds for appeal by the defendant succeeding intervenor

A. (1) In the event of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle, at the time of the accident, should safely proceed along the intersection as “YA-type intersection,” but at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, should normally pass through the intersection according to its own signals. However, the Plaintiff’s liability ratio should be 90% since the accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s own approach to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle in violation of the intersection signal and obstructed the course of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(2) Although the first instance court did not limit the Plaintiff to 5 degrees of exercise, it is deemed to have permanently obstructed the playgrounds of the right line, and applied the labor disability loss rate to 14%, but it is very unusual.

B. (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including additional numbers), the results of the plaintiff's newspaper and the whole arguments, the evidence submitted by the defendant succeeding intervenor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff violated the signal at the time of the accident and obstructed the course of the defendant's vehicle. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, the accident of this case is recognized to be caused by the defendant driver B's violation of the duty of safe driving, in the course of changing the course of the defendant's vehicle driver's discovery of the plaintiff's Obaba, thereby causing the plaintiff's violation of the duty of safe driving, and thus, the ratio of the plaintiff'