2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

2.(b)

2) With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the “actual income” portion, it is identical to the judgment of the first instance court except for the addition of the following additional judgments, and thus, it shall be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (in this case where only the Plaintiff appealed, the first instance court shall be based on the presumption that the amount of damages cannot be recognized more than the amount of the Plaintiff’s active damages (a total of 10,146,340 won), passive damages (a total of 10,146,340 won) recognized by the first instance court, and the amount of damages (a total of 100,000 won).

[2] 2. The Plaintiff’s additional determination is based on the following grounds: (a) 5% of the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate is 5%; (b) the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate is 5%; (c) from December 3, 2015, the date on which the Plaintiff’s body was fighting, to October 20, 2030, the Plaintiff’s daily rate of ordinary part wage is applied from December 3, 2030, the date on which the Plaintiff’s operation was fighting, to calculate the actual income generated by the Plaintiff; (d) the Defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the Plaintiff; and (e) the attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act provides that the Defendant is obliged to pay the above money to the Plaintiff based on beneficial benefits; (e) the person who uses at least three dental technicians with dental disability is obliged to do so; and (e) the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate is set to the extent of the average labor disability rate based on a mutually beneficial benefit rate; and (e) the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate is more than the victim’s labor disability rate.