1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[C] The third part of the judgment of the first instance court’s judgment’s “Restriction on Liability” is added to the following contents:

The defendant asserts that the judgment of the first instance court that recognized the deceased's negligence significantly less than the deceased's negligence is unfair, since the deceased, including the deceased, and the first instance court that recognized that the deceased's negligence was significantly less than the deceased's negligence, as it was not so erroneous that the deceased should have been urged to ensure safe operation because the J and G had already been in a state of spreading.

However, the argument regarding the limitation of the Defendant’s liability does not differ significantly from the argument in the lower court, and even if the deceased was found to have been on board in excess of the number of the Defendant’s vehicle and on knee-knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kn

Therefore, even if the first instance court's decision on the limitation of liability is reviewed in full view of all the evidence, including the statements and images of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 submitted in the trial, it is justified.

The “founded ground for recognition” column 4 is added to the “Evidence No. 15” column.

The calculation of Section 5(a)(4) is as follows: KRW 488,435,662 as indicated below.

In the second half of 2020, the plaintiffs sought.