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

1. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning the occurrence of liability for damages and limitation of liability shall be determined by the court of the first instance.

1. Sub-paragraph (a) [based on recognition] the phrase “B 1 to B” as “A evidence 1”;

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of subsection (d) as follows, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

[Attachment D] The above recognition of liability limitation: (a) according to witness E of the first instance trial, and witness I of the first instance trial, Plaintiff A was aware of the fact that the flow of high voltage currents and the possibility of reduction of charging charges for the changer of the instant case is likely to occur. Plaintiff A is obligated to confirm whether the high voltage currents have been obstructed to the persons related to the Defendant Flaco, and to prevent the electric shock accidents by carrying out the work after being equipped with an exhaustr equipment to prevent the electric shock accident. Plaintiff A was responsible for preventing the accident and ensuring safety. Plaintiff A was responsible for the accident of this case while entering the pents without wearing the exhaustr safety caps. Since the Plaintiff’s error was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, Plaintiff A’s fault ratio shall be 60%, and the Defendants’ liability ratio shall be limited to 40%.”

2. In principle, a period of time for calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 10 shall be discarded;

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

It is rejected that the parties' arguments have not been separately explained.

The court's explanation of this part of this Court's decision is 2.0% of the judgment of the court of first instance.

- 5) through 7) are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as follows, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[5] Limitation of liability]: 66.