With respect to the accident described in the attached Table 1, C and the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

2. Each of the 3rd, 4th, 3, 4th, 19, 5th, 7th, 6th, and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “the court of first instance”.

After the "the purport of the entire argument" in the first and second instances of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff asserted that the period of disability should be recognized for five years on the ground that the physical examination conducted by the G Hospital outside of the G Hospital and the physical examination replyed to five years after the closing of the first instance trial (the period of disability), but on the other hand, the F Hospital outside of the F Hospital and the physical examination conducted an appraisal of June 1, 200 for the duration of the Defendant's loss of labor ability related to the Defendant's cirrosis; the Defendant actually received medical treatment for about six years from January 9, 2009 to June 15, 2015; at least from May 7, 2015, it appears that the Plaintiff still complained of the pain of the G Hospital (the evidence No. 8 and the result of the physical examination conducted by the court of first instance with respect to the H hospital chief of the H hospital). Therefore, the Plaintiff's assertion in this part is reasonable to be added.

The grounds for recognition of the fourth 3 and fourth 4 of the first instance court’s text added “the results of the fact inquiry with respect to O by this court’s F Hospital surgery” to “the fact that the 4th th th th 12 through 14” and “the fact that the 4th th th th th th th th 12 through 14” to “the fact that the 4th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Section 3-D 1 of the part on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.