Among them, the part against the Plaintiff regarding lost earnings and anesthesia pain medicine shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

1. The fact-finding or the determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for offsetting negligence is not deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Therefore, there were no errors in the rules of evidence, such as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Regarding the scope of damages

A. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment with respect to property damage, the lower court determined that: (a) in calculating the Plaintiff’s lost income, the Plaintiff’s maximum working age is 60 years and calculated the lost income based on the daily wage as an ordinary worker on a construction business wage survey report; and (b) from April 6, 2010 when the Plaintiff was discharged from a self-feling surgery, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lost the Plaintiff’s entire working ability in light of the Plaintiff’s injury injury part or degree, and the progress of treatment; and (c) in that it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s emotional disorder overlaps with anesthesia pain surgery, the lower court recognized the rate of loss of working capacity of 21.68% due to anesthesia pain surgery and mental health surgery; and (b) in calculating the Plaintiff’s other property damage, the lower court did not reflect it on the ground that the expected period had already elapsed at the time of closing argument in the lower court in the instant case; and (d) calculated the Plaintiff’s total 18 hours from the date of the instant accident.