1. Of the part regarding the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, 37,587 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) B.

The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts added or rewritten by the following paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation of this case is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) The court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion even if all of the evidence presented in the court of first instance were examined, the court of first instance and the court of first instance that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable. The part that the Plaintiff asserted in the court of first instance, while appealed, did not differ from

A. Attached Form 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be attached to this judgment.

B. Article 3-4(d) of the judgment of the court of first instance (“The calculation of the scope of liability for damages shall be made on a monthly basis; the calculation of the period for the convenience of calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be made on a monthly basis; the amount below the month shall be included in the part where the appraised amount is less than the last month and the amount below the last month shall be discarded; the calculation of the present price at the time of the accident at the time of the accident in this case shall be made by the simple discount method which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month: 1) personal information: The rate of loss of labor ability in the attached Form 3: (b) The rate of loss of labor ability: Two copies, brain, and number of Maddddra labor capability assessment table:

Ⅱ Since 3.3% (i.e., 10% x 1/3) and 6.6% (i.e., 3., 3.3%) and 3.6% (i.e., 3., 3.3%) and 3.6% (i.e., 6. x 2 c) operation ability since 3.3%) of the 5th brain damage, 32,894,983 (refer to the “actual income” in the attached Form of Damages Calculation Table) are one of the three kinds: 32,894,983 won (refer to the “actual income” in the damages Calculation Table) were not the grounds for recognition; 3.3% of the 1st instance instance court’s entrustment to the director of the Seoul Medical Center (in the case of the 5th instance court) and the result of physical inquiry, and the purport of the oral proceedings and the purport of the whole oral proceedings in the future.