1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in the judgment is modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 370,959,959.

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except that part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (Provided, That the part against the joint plaintiffs of the court of first instance, which was separated by the judgment of remand except the plaintiff, is excluded), and it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) Parts 5 to 11 of the first instance judgment shall be written in the following manner:

B) Meanwhile, according to the aforementioned evidence, etc., the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to the trial after remanding the case and the circumstances of its assertion shall be considered.

Even though there was a limitation in social life, it is recognized that the plaintiff did not lose the ability to work due to the defendant's illegal act, and if so, it can be confirmed that the plaintiff could have obtained income equivalent to the daily wage of the general worker at least after the parole.

Therefore, as long as it cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff failed to obtain income equivalent to the daily wage of an ordinary worker, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to conduct economic activities themselves due to the Defendant’s unlawful act after parole, only the difference between the income that could have been obtained as an employee of the Korea Coal Corporation and the income equivalent to the daily wage of an ordinary worker shall be deemed as the loss of actual import in proximate causal relation with the Defendant’s unlawful act.

(However, since the Defendant recognized the full amount of loss of lost income without deducting income equivalent to the daily wage from the day after the Plaintiff was released for the convenience of calculation until May 31, 1991, only the difference calculated by deducting the ordinary wage from the lost income loss shall be deemed as the loss of actual income.

B. Part 10 to 14 of the decision of the first instance is as follows.