1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the lawsuit.

A. In the first instance court, with respect to the incident that occurred on December 8, 2011, the Plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 292,279,760,945, (i) daily actual income of KRW 242,691,105 (i.e., total income of KRW 242,691,105), (ii) medical expenses of KRW 52,608,815 (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 11,860,55 (i., total medical expenses of KRW 40,748,260), ③ damages of KRW 35,00,00 for damages, and the first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim by recognizing only a part of the claim for damages.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants appealed against each of the judgment of the first instance, and the judgment prior to the remand was dismissed in entirety by both the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

C. As to the judgment of the party before remanding, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on the grounds that, although the Plaintiff claimed for the pre-trial treatment costs and future treatment costs after deducting the medical care benefits of KRW 29,160,730, which was paid by the Plaintiff, the judgment of the party before remanded the aforementioned medical care benefits again from the recognized treatment costs and future treatment costs, the aforementioned medical care benefits were deducted, which

The court of final appeal reversed the judgment of the court of final appeal prior to the remanding that the court below, which recognized the amount obtained by deducting the total amount of the medical care benefits the plaintiff received from the early medical treatment expenses and future medical treatment expenses as the award amount for the future medical treatment expenses, on the grounds that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the deduction of medical care benefits in damages and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and remanded

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the facts of recognition is as stated in paragraph (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where “Defendant B” is deemed to be “Codefendant B, a codefendant in the first instance trial.” As such, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. Any occurrence of liability for damages and limitation of liability.