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

Facts of recognition

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the facts of recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages and the occurrence of limited liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the harmful act of this case.

In full view of the circumstances leading up to the instant harmful act, the circumstances before and after the accident, and the Plaintiff’s suspension of indictment in relation to the instant case, etc., the Plaintiff also appears to be partly responsible for the occurrence of the instant harmful act and the expansion of the damage therefrom. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% by

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the scope of liability for damages is limited to KRW 16,774,074, medical fees of KRW 4,337,725, consolation money of KRW 20,00,000, total of KRW 41,111,799 (i.e., KRW 16,774,074, KRW 4,337,725,000) due to the instant harmful act.

In full view of the evidence No. 3 (including paper numbers) and evidence No. 8, the results of physical examination commissioned by the court of first instance to the director of a university hospital at the lower court, the results of fact inquiry, and the whole purport of oral argument, the Plaintiff’s actual income is KRW 15,400,605, such as the daily income in attached Form No. 1.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the contribution ratio of the plaintiff should be deducted in calculating the actual income of the plaintiff.

According to the statement No. 5-1 of the evidence No. 5-1 of the court of first instance, the results of the fact-finding inquiry conducted to the head of the reduced university hospital of the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings (including the opinion of professional examiners D of the court of first instance) as a result of the fact-finding inquiry conducted, the plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as the sacriffing, the sacrhing, the escape from the sacrh, and the vertebrate, etc. due to the harmful act of this case.