1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 28,161,619 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from November 19, 2012 to August 28, 2015.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the liability for damages are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, each corresponding item of the Schedule of Calculation of Compensation for Damages shall be as follows, and in principle, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

Personal information 1) Personal data: 2) Income and operating period are as in the column for the calculation table of damages amount: Urban Daily Wage of ordinary people, the number of operating days until he reaches the age of 60), 6.9% of the labor ability loss rate due to the escape certificate of protruding of protruding, 6.9% of the permanent disability [6.9% of the labor ability loss rate due to the escape certificate of protruding of protruding, 5% of the Mabrid disability Assessment Table, 70% of the Plaintiff’s contribution to spine damage in spine damage (5), Mabrid disability Assessment Table, 50% of the Plaintiff’s contribution to Mabrid] following the instant accident, the Defendant did not receive any other medical treatment, and it is unreasonable to calculate the rate of loss of labor ability based on the results of the appraisal by the court of the first instance after the lapse of five months from the date of the instant accident.

In light of the fact that the decision of the loss rate of labor ability should be reasonable and objective, it is not allowed to arbitrarily disregard the result of the doctor's appraisal without sufficient grounds.

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Meu982 delivered on April 13, 1990). In this case, the result of the commission of physical examination to the president of the Hhee University Hospital at the court of first instance is the same.