1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the Appointed B, and C.

1. The reasoning for this part of the court’s claim for damages is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. At the time of the instant accident, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to 50%, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Deceased’s negligence unflyingd as the three-lane of letter at night as well as the time, place, circumstance, etc. of the instant accident.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that not only the deceased's negligence but also the driver's negligence, such as the driver's duty to maintain speed, the violation of duty to maintain speed limit, the driver's negligence in front of the accident, the driver's negligence, and the driver's negligence, rather than the deceased's negligence, should be deemed to exceed 60% of the defendant's responsibility.

According to the facts stated in Paragraph (1), the facts of recognition as Paragraph (1), No. 3-1, No. 19-5, No. 27, No. 4-2, and No. 4-3, each of the statements or images stated in the following: (a) at the time of the instant accident, the driver of the instant vehicle was negligent in failing to perform the duty of front-time care; and (b) at the time of the instant accident, the instant vehicle was in progress at approximately 72 km over the speed of 60 km (However, immediately before the instant accident was entered in the actual survey, the speed is 51 to 60 km); (c) although it is deemed that there was an indication "astronomical" on the surface near the point of the instant accident, it is difficult for the Deceased to view that the instant vehicle was in close vicinity of the instant vehicle by considering the following facts: (d) No. 5, No. 6-1, No. 2, and No. 3, and that the Deceased appeared to the direction of the instant vehicle.