2. The argument about the limitation of liability among the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff A and the defendant federation as to this part of the liability for damages is not significantly different from the argument by the court below, and the decision by the court of first instance as to the limitation of liability is just even if all evidence are reviewed comprehensively.

Therefore, the reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: (a) in addition to the application of “A” in Section 6 of the judgment of the first instance to “B”, the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of “B”; and (b) in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act,

3. The scope of the Defendants’ liability for damages against Plaintiff A is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment 1] The calculation table of the amount of damages against Plaintiff A of the first instance judgment shall be applied to the calculation table of the amount of damages in attached Form 1.

The part of the 6th 12th 13th 13th 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 3th 2th 200

The 7th 9-11th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

According to the statement of evidence No. 16, No. 16-6, and No. 28, the Plaintiff spent the amount of KRW 11,150 for medical expenses from October 24, 2012 to November 19, 2012; KRW 221,820 for medical expenses from May 18, 2012 to June 16, 2012; and KRW 1,033,448 for medical expenses from May 18, 2012 to June 16, 2012 (total medical expenses of KRW 1,059,448 for medical expenses of KRW 26,00 for issuance of a written diagnosis).

Of KRW 77,120 out of the 1,508,610, no dispute over the treatment costs at the first instance court, the medical expenses from October 24, 2012 to November 19, 2012.