1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The part of the Plaintiff’s claim for physical appraisal costs in the instant lawsuit.

1. The plaintiff in the first instance court rejected the defendants' active damage 9,806,707 won (the plaintiff's physical appraisal expenses of KRW 1,256,00 won for physical appraisal expenses of KRW 7,000 for automobile repair expenses of KRW 882,737 for automobile repair expenses of KRW 7,087,970 for physical appraisal expenses of KRW 1,250,000), passive damage 57,697,293 [total damages of KRW 256,076,782 for daily loss (the total damages of KRW 27,129,604 for aftermath disability), sick amount, and annual leave of absence for disease of KRW 8,726,50 for damages caused by the suspension of business operation, KRW 7,99,410 for early retirement, KRW 300 for early retirement, KRW 209, KRW 3000 for mental damage, and KRW 3004 for early retirement, 2000 for damages).

Since only the Defendants appealed against this, the scope of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the part against the Defendants. In particular, since each of the above claims is dismissed in entirety as to the above 8,726,506 won of physical appraisal expenses, 1,256,00 won of traffic expenses, 7,99,410 won of loss related to temporary retirement from illness, 3,191,262 won of damage related to temporary retirement from disease, 209,00 won of early retirement, and 209,030,000 won of damage due to early retirement, each of the above claims shall be excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this Court.

except that the claim of 400,000 won for physical appraisal shall be made under the following 4.

B. 4) As seen in the above, there is no interest in the lawsuit, and it is unlawful as it concerns the requirements for the lawsuit, and the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is not applied, and the claim for affirmative damages, including the above claim for the examination of the body, was transferred to the court of the whole trial as the defendant's appeal against the part, and thus, it is determined below in relation thereto). 2.

A. The Plaintiff is the driver of the DNA vehicle (hereinafter “victim”), and the Korean Federation of Private Taxi Transport Associations (hereinafter “Defendant Federation”) is not more than C private taxi and not more than C private taxi.