1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The phrase "statement of calculation of the amount of damages" in Section 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by that of the six pages of the judgment.

A statement of calculation of expenses for follow-up treatment in part 12 of the judgment of the first instance shall be replaced by that of 7 pages of the judgment.

On the fourth 18th 10th 1st 1th 2th 10th 10th 10th 4th 10th 2th 102.

Each of the 5th-19th-19th-19th-6th-7th-7th-7th-2, and 11th-2th-2th-2th-7th-2 of the first-class judgment shall be determined on November 12, 2015, which is the day following the date on which the argument in this case is concluded.”

The 5th to 6th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed by the following 1th of the 5th to 3th of the 6th.

Although it is anticipated that KRW 11,788,132 will be required for medical treatment and examination costs for two years from the date of preparation of a mental and emotional report ( September 26, 2013), the above period of time required for medical treatment and examination has expired as of the date of the date of the closing of argument in the trial, and there is no evidence to acknowledge whether the above period of time required for medical treatment and examination has been actually spent until the date of closing of argument in the trial, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed from claiming damages for future medical treatment costs as follows.

1) If the Defendant deducts each of the above amounts from the Defendant’s advance payment of damages KRW 84,510,100,000 corresponding to the Plaintiff’s liability ratio of KRW 169,020,200, the Defendant spent for the Plaintiff’s medical expenses up to September 8, 2017, the amount of property damages does not remain remaining if it deducts each of the above amounts from the Defendant’s advance payment of damages.

(A) The Defendant asserts the additional deduction of the cost of internal security, etc. paid to the Plaintiff, but no further determination is made as to the assertion of the additional deduction, unless the said amount is deducted from each other). The first instance court’s 9-8-11 conduct is as follows.