1. A claim for the extension and reduction of the part concerning lost income in the judgment of the court of first instance before and after remanding;

1. As a result of the Plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment of the party before remanding the case after remanding the case, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded only the part against the Plaintiff regarding the lost income in the judgment of the party before remanding the case, and the remainder of the Plaintiff’s active damages and consolation money, excluding the part against the Plaintiff as to lost income in the judgment of the party before remanding the case, is already finalized. Accordingly, the judgment of the party after remanding the case is limited to the part against the Plaintiff out of the lost income which was destroyed and remanded

2. The grounds for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of "the scope of liability for damages" from No. 1 to No. 6 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be as follows:

According to the scope of liability for damages, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 125,426,875 won [20% of the loss rate of labor ability based on urban daily wage up to 65 years of age (the remaining person who has a serious physical disability in the snow eye)] and its delay damages as actual income damages (Article 11(2) of attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act) and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 125,426,875 won (the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 20% of the loss rate of labor ability

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that a euthanasia caused euthanasia caused by the instant surgery and re-operation.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 6, 36, and 37: (a) the Plaintiff received a psychiatrist from the F Hospital on May 19, 2014; (b) June 5, 2014; and (c) on August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff diagnosed the Plaintiff as a severe depression; (c) the Plaintiff was diagnosed as a psychiatrist on several occasions from July 9, 2019 to October 1, 2019.