1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs is modified as follows. A.

The defendant 1 to the plaintiff A 71,810.

1. The plaintiff A claimed positive damages, passive damages, and consolation money against the defendant within the scope of the judgment of this court, and the plaintiff B claimed positive damages and consolation money, respectively. The court of first instance accepted each of the above claims of the plaintiff A and part of the claim of consolation money of the plaintiff B.

For this reason, the plaintiff A appealed on the part of passive damage, the part of active damage, and the part of active damage. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim of the plaintiffs on the above part.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance

3. On the 5th and 6th of the first instance judgment, the part of the first instance judgment, which changed the phrase “A sought payment of KRW 73,564,130 for the first time treatment cost,” to read “A is seeking payment of KRW 43,965,471 for the first time treatment cost, but the part of the sixthth of the first instance judgment.”

paragraphs (e) through (e)

Part of Paragraph 1

C. The cost of removing metal for future treatment costs is 3.6 million won twice. If there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff A had spent medical treatment prior to the date of closing of argument in the trial, it shall be deemed that the amount was spent twice at intervals of one year from January 10, 2018 on the day following the date of closing of argument in the trial, and the said amount shall be calculated on the day of the accident, which is the date on which the date of commencing the trial.

Considering the overall circumstances, such as the parts and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury caused by the instant accident, the content and progress of the treatment, and the details and necessity of the care, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s opening of one adult female at eight hours a day from October 27, 2010 to December 120, 200, following the date of the instant accident.

However, for the convenience of calculation, it shall be calculated on the basis of urban daily wage at the time of the accident.

E. Transfer treatment: The part and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury caused by the instant accident of KRW 600,000,00, and the above Plaintiff’s injury.