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

1. The reasoning for this case by the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any addition or modification as follows, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, Article 5(3) of the first instance court’s decision on the part added, “The Plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 9-1 through 4 to this court by asserting that the Plaintiff was scheduled to work at the overseas place of business at the time of the instant accident, but the statement of each of the above documentary evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above assertion is not accepted.” In addition, Article 7(4) of the first instance court’s decision, following the first instance court’s decision, stating that “The Plaintiff should have 15% permanent disability as to the Plaintiff according to the result of the appraisal entrustment to the Chief of Seoul National University Hospital of the first instance court, but even according to the above appraisal entrustment, the rate of disability recognized as a result of the Plaintiff’s injury pursuant to the Mabrodro-D-1-b) is 12% (24% disability rate, 50% contribution rate), and the Plaintiff did not appear to be 10% or more of the Plaintiff’s artificial disability after the first instance court’s judgment.”

"However, there is no evidence that the plaintiff paid the above medical expenses by the date of the closing of argument in this court, which is the day following the date of the closing of argument in the court of first instance recognized by the judgment.