Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The court's explanation of this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be as follows: "the occurrence of liability for damages" under paragraph (2) of the same Article.

In addition, paragraph (3) (the statement of Paragraph (4) at the 7th judgment of the court of first instance appears to be a clerical error) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as follows. Therefore, it is also accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The occurrence of liability

E. Limit of liability: Provided, however, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability for damages to 80% for the fair and reasonable apportionment of damages in consideration of the following: (a) there is no possibility that pictures might occur even with due care in the process of the instant procedure, and (b) the Plaintiff A seems to have contributed to the remaining physical factors of the said Plaintiff’s low-liter and tamper in the process of the instant procedure; and (c) the Plaintiff A appears to have contributed to some extent.

The plaintiff A, who had lost income within the scope of liability for damages, falls under "the person who remains a scar in Do on the face of a bridge" in subparagraph 5 of class 14 of class 2 of attached Table 2 of the State Compensation Act, and has lost 5% of the working ability of 20 years of age from the age of 20 to the age of 5% of the working ability of 20. Accordingly, the plaintiff A, who had lost lost income of 2,133,568.

On the other hand, in the event of a sudden disability caused by a tort, where the external appearance is presumed to have occurred, it shall be deemed that there has been a loss of labor ability due to an abstract disorder, only if such abstract disorder has been considerably affected by future employment, job selection, promotion, possibility of change of occupation, etc. in relation to the victim's sex, age, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da105062, Jan. 13, 201; 2003Da39927, Oct. 15, 2004). In this case, as examined below, the plaintiff A is low.