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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when adding or adding to, the following is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. As to the part added or used by the court of first instance, the phrase “each description and image of the evidence No. 4, No. 25, No. 26” shall be added to 3 pages 1 of the court of first instance (based on recognition).

In light of the circumstances leading up to the front left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant vehicle appears to have completely entered the first lane after completing the alteration of the vehicle. As such, the Plaintiff appears to have failed to take such measures despite the safety distance to avoid the collision if the previous Defendant vehicle reduces its speed (Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act), and this is deemed to have a significant cause for the occurrence of the accident (Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act), and further, the “85%” of the eight parallels is deemed to have been 50%.

The attached table of calculation of damages in the judgment of the first instance shall be replaced by the attached table of calculation of damages in the judgment of the party.

The fourth and second parallel acts of the judgment of the court of first instance include “48,95,298 won” as “94,045,336 won,” and the fifth parallel act’s “before the date on which he attains the age of 60” as “within the age of 65, which is the maximum working age recognized by empirical rule.”

The 4th to 11th of the judgment of the first instance shall be conducted in the following manner:

“The Young-gu Disability: The defendant alleged that 14% of his/her ability to work was lost due to the defluence of the mission, which is the left-hand top-hand top-hand, (the king of 50% of his/her ability to work due to the Mabrid disability assessment table-II-D, occupational coefficient 5; the defendant contributed to 50% of his/her ability to work, but it is difficult to recognize the above assertion only by the descriptions of 27 through 29 evidence in light of the fact-finding results with respect to the head of the H Hospital at the original instance, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The Korea Market Sea: It shall be for two years from the date of the accident of this case due to the certificate of the left-hand slot.