1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's request added at the trial court, the defendant 6,442.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's claim added in the court of first instance after the dismissal of the pertinent part and the addition of the judgment as to the plaintiff's claim in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court's judgment. As such,

2. Parts in height:

(a) The first instance court’s fourth to fifth eth eth son eth eth eth eth eth etha are as follows:

“(A)The labor disability rate during the period of hospitalization was hospitalized from January 28, 2014 to February 10, 2014, the date of the instant accident. However, although the Defendant appears to have received medical treatment, the direct cause of the Defendant’s hospitalization is the instant accident, and the period of hospitalization is not unreasonable, considering the fact that the Defendant’s labor disability rate during the period of hospitalization is 100%. (b) The Defendant’s labor disability rate is 3% of the annual rate of the court of the appellate court of the first instance for the rate of labor disability due to the latter disability, based on the physical examination of the head of the school hybrid hospital, which was the date of the instant accident, and the Defendant’s labor disability rate is 2.3% of the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate after the date of the instant accident (the rate of contribution 90%), and it constitutes 13% of the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate in the case of a permanent worker working as an urban worker, 13% of the Plaintiff’s labor disability rate.

(b) The fifth and third marks of the judgment of the first instance are as follows:

The base date of statistical data on the unit price of wages for the end of the period from the first day of the period shall mean the publication date of such data.