1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded and reduced in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception that the court of first instance held 4 to 14 to 7 pages 10 are used as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

[2] (2) The following circumstances revealed by the facts on the basis of limitation of liability and the purport of the entire pleading, namely, ① the Plaintiff had been aware of the issue of labelling prior to the instant accident movement; ② considering the Plaintiff’s occupation and career, it appears that the Plaintiff did not exercise due care even though he had a duty of care to ensure the safety of himself because he was well aware of the possibility of physical damage in the event of carrying out a Belgium movement in question, compared to the general public; ③ the Plaintiff was at the time of the instant accident, due to the high risk of physical damage; ④ one month after the instant accident occurred. Considering the Plaintiff’s occupation, there is a possibility that the degree of injury becomes worse, and ⑤ the Plaintiff could not have been negligent in making efforts to prevent the danger of high-weight movement more than the general public, as seen above, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages is limited to 0% of the Plaintiff’s negligence, and thus, it appears that the Defendant’s compensation for damages should have been limited to 60% of the Plaintiff’s negligence.