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

1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the basic facts are as follows: “Defendant A” to “Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial,” and “Defendant Association” to “Defendant” are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the case where “Defendant A” and “Defendant Association” to “Defendant”, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact of recognition as above, the accident in this case constitutes an accident during the operation of the taxi in this case, and the co-defendant A of the first instance court is the driver of the taxi in this case, and the defendant is jointly liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim in this case as a mutual aid business operator of the taxi in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

However, inasmuch as the victims are negligent or negligent in the future of the instant taxi without a signal informing the change of course in order to drive an illegal intern in the section where the change of course or U.S. is prohibited, the responsibility of the Defendant and the co-defendant A of the first instance trial is limited to 20% by taking account of these circumstances into account.

B. 1) The facts below the passive amount of damages (the scope of damages) are either not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, each of the evidence and the evidence set forth above, and the evidence set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including a number), the result of the medical record appraisal conducted by the court of the first instance with H, and the overall purport of the arguments, based on the overall purport of arguments, as a result of each of the appraisal of the medical record supplementation conducted by the court of the first instance and the court G of this court. The personal information of the victims - gender - male, i student - date of the accident: December 1, 2012 (Age 29 years old at the time of the accident: 60 years old at the time of the accident): The maximum working age on February 22, 2043 (Na 60 years old at the time of the accident): The defendant asserts that the time efficiency limitation 19% should be rejected.

According to the fact-finding results of the Incheon Nam-gu Jdong and the National Pension Service of the court of first instance, the victim is visual disability on July 1, 2013.