1. All appeals against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim extended at the trial.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the occurrence of the Plaintiff’s liability for damages and the limitation of liability is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

3. The parts not separately described below the scope of the Plaintiff’s liability for damages are as shown in the attached Table of Calculation of Damages.

(A) The calculation shall be made in accordance with the premium calculation method, which deducts intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as a single-interest, and the calculation shall be less than a month for the convenience of calculation, and less than a won shall be discarded) and it shall be rejected that the parties' arguments have not separately explained.

(1) Personal information: The amount of damages shall be as specified in the attached Table in the calculation sheet of damages.

(2) Income: The Defendant appears to have had no certain occupation at the time of the instant accident and had been residing in the urban area (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu2315, Apr. 10, 1990), and thus, it is deemed to have earned the income for urban daily wage of the ordinary person at the time.

As to this, the defendant alleged that he had been engaged in agriculture at the time, and thus, he should have earned income from the daily wage for rural communities. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was engaged in agriculture at the time only by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 15 through 21, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the defendant's above assertion

(3) The defendant was hospitalized for 56 days from July 13, 2004 to September 6, 2004. It is reasonable to view that the labor ability was lost by 100% from July 11, 2004, the date of the accident of this case until September 6, 2004.