1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for partial revision as set forth below. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

In full view of the five pages 1 to 3 of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver’s fault ratio in the instant accident appears to be 70:30 in light of the following: “The Defendant’s driver appears to have driven without obtaining a license (the Defendant’s vehicle is a two-wheeled vehicle of 39cc and requires a Class 2 driver’s license, but the Defendant’s driver did not obtain the above license. The Defendant’s driver was not a two-wheeled vehicle, and the Defendant’s two-wheeled vehicle is a two-wheeled vehicle of this case, not a three-lane designated vehicle at the time of the instant accident, but a one-lane, the Defendant’s two-wheeled vehicle of this case.”

The 5th sentence of the first instance judgment, 10th to 19th sentence, shall be amended as follows:

[3,021,055 won (=331,157,90 won x 45%) remaining 83,021,055 won (=149,021,055 won - 66,000,000 won) out of the amount already paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., 149,021,055 won - 66,000,000 won) and 33,347,370 won which is the amount of the first instance judgment, after the Plaintiff paid damages to the Plaintiff, defense is raised as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform from December 28, 2018 to May 30, 2019, as the date of the first instance judgment, as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform from May 30, 2019 to the date of the first instance judgment, 5,67,685 won which is the remainder of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff.