1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the liability for damages are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. On the basis of the facts of recognition and assessment under paragraph (1) below 5,144,576 won: (a) pursuant to the Hofman Identification Calculation Act, which deducts the Plaintiff from the computation of an intermediate interest rate by the ratio of 5/12% per month of the amount of actual income accrued from the instant accident, based on the facts of recognition and assessment under paragraph (1) below, the amount shall be KRW 5,144,576 as of the date of the instant accident (if the amount is calculated at the present price as of the date of the instant accident, the following 4): (In order to prevent excessive compensation, the amount shall be calculated on the side where the monthly income amount prior to the deduction of the interim interest is smaller; hereinafter the same shall apply); (b) Case number 2014Na870438, the age A: 16th day on the date of birth of 2010-24, and the maximum working age of 205-270-26th day following the end date of the occupation;

3) If there are various different appraisal results with respect to the same matter as the latter disability, it is legitimate unless it violates the rules of experience or logic.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da39368 delivered on October 27, 1992, etc.). In this case, according to the result of the commission of physical evaluation of the head of the High University and the head of the High University and the head of the High Hospital (out-of-date department), the court of first instance appraised that the injury caused by the accident of this case caused by the accident of this case would affect the Plaintiff’s ability to work by observing approximately 20 degrees of tolerance movement restriction. Meanwhile, according to the result of the first instance court’s commission of physical examination of the head of the East University and the head of the East University and the University Hospital (out-of-date department), there is no applicable item in the Mabrid table, and the part 14th class 10 of the attached Table 2.