1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendant’s successor in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reasons for this Court’s explanation concerning this case are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the pertinent part as follows. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

A. The fourth instance court's decision Nos. 17 and 18 are followed.

B. “The future treatment costs: 4,815,600 won (the cost of 6 million won is anticipated to be spent for the treatment costs necessary for metal removal, etc. and the Plaintiff spent the treatment costs on April 14, 2017, which is the day following the date of the closing of argument in the trial in the current trial, for the convenience of calculating the treatment costs, unless there is evidence that the Plaintiff spent the treatment costs by the date of the closing of argument in the current trial, the current situation is considered to have been considered to have been spent on April 14, 2017). However, the victim of the traffic accident asserts that in calculating the future treatment costs, the compensation for actual damages within the scope of proximate causal relation with the tort due to the treatment costs caused by the traffic accident should be reasonably determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the degree of injury, treatment content and frequency, and the amount of medical insurance fees, while the criteria for the motor vehicle accident compensation insurance fee under the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Guarantee Act has meaning the criteria for protecting the patient’s traffic accident expenses between the insurer and the medical institution.

(b) the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment “47,746,217 won” and “79,577,029 won” shall be deemed “47,646,137 won” and “79,410,229 won”.