The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should reduce the amount of damages by 30% in relation to the cambling, while the plaintiff was on board the vehicle operated by D, which is a university engine, with M, to play in large scale.

In light of various circumstances such as the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator, the circumstances leading up to his/her participation in the vehicle, and the purpose and active nature of the demand for the participation in the vehicle, if it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith or equity, the amount of compensation may be reduced, but the fact that the vehicle is merely accompanied by the vehicle involved in the accident, and it does not mean that the driver has a duty of care to urge the safe operation of the vehicle on the sole basis of such fact.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da53141 delivered on February 9, 199, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, according to the health team, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and the purport of the argument as to the instant case, the accident vehicle is the father of the driver D, who is the Plaintiff’s university engine, and the Plaintiff was on board the accident vehicle to play in large scale with D as of the date of the instant accident, and prior to that, there was no boarding on the accident vehicle.