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

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[C] The "attached Form of Calculation of Damages" is added to the "attached Form of Calculation of Damages" in this judgment.

Paragraph (c)(c) of the third place is as follows.

C. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident was caused by the preceding negligence of D, which is the driver of the Oral Ba, and that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, was not entirely responsible because of the force majeure, even though the Defendant’s negligence on the part of the deceased, the Defendant’s responsibility should be considerably limited on the ground of the deceased’s getting on the operation and negligence. Therefore, in full view of the evidence and the entire arguments submitted, the Defendant erred by failing to take into account the situation where the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle committed a violation of the former driver’s duty, such as the operation of the vehicle at the time of driving the vehicle at the same time, and failure to discover or avoid the instant accident where the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle changed the lane. Moreover, the Defendant’s failure to take account of the fact that the instant accident occurred during the process of changing the lane from the first to the second one, and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle again did not change the vehicle from the second to the second one.