1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff B, which orders additional payment under the following.

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "the result of fact-finding on the director of Daejeon Hospital at the court of the first instance" was added to "the result of fact-finding on the director of Daejeon University at the court of the first instance" under the ground for recognition of the part 11 of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and 1) the part concerning the plaintiff B in the claim against the court of the first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment, except for the modification of the part concerning the damages for the plaintiff B by changing the part concerning the plaintiff B as below, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. [1] The part concerning the "daily income" is identical to the part concerning the "daily income" under the attached

The income and operating period: The daily wage for rural communities, the 25th day of operation, the 60 years old, the after-age disability and the scarcity of the labor ability loss rate: 16% 16%, the rehabilitation department of the market sea (applicable to the chest damage and disease I-C, the occupational coefficient 5) : 32% permanent disability (the occupational coefficient 5 is applied to the results of physical appraisal, but the occupational coefficient of the new boundary disability applicable to general indoor and outdoor workers is 3, this is applicable.

[3] Mental health department: 12% permanent disability (two parts, brain, dual, brain, and dual disability assessment table 9-B-1), three application of the occupational coefficient (the physical assessment result is subject to the occupational coefficient 5), but the occupational coefficient of the new boundary disability applicable to the general indoor and outdoor workers is three, so it is subject to the application.

) The Defendant asserts that, since Plaintiff B suffered a large stress prior to the instant accident, it should consider the degree of contribution in calculating the rate of loss of mental health and labor ability, however, there is no evidence to prove that Plaintiff B had caused a streking for mental disability, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not accepted) whether the same streke disability is duplicateed.