1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 5th and 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the "Witness E" of the court of first instance.

The 5th to 12th of the judgment of the first instance shall be subject to the following parts of the 6th to 12th of the judgment.

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff was negligent in exercising due care to prevent the loss from entering the roller in the course of performing the removal of foreign substances, and such negligence is deemed to have caused the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the accident in this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the defendant's liability in determining the defendant's liability, but it is reasonable to view the plaintiff's fault ratio to 30% in light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the cause and circumstance of the accident in this case, etc., so the defendant's responsibility shall be limited to 70% except the above negligence ratio of the plaintiff." The calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the calculation table of damages in the annexed sheet of the judgment of the court.

"Calculation: 169,854,680 won" in the sixth sentence of the first instance judgment shall be construed as "Calculation: 179,987,149 won [the amount of actual income for a period from April 27, 2015 to April 30, 2015] ¡À351,220 won (i.e., unit price of wage x 87,805 won x 4 days) ± [10.05 x 18 months of the number of months in which losses incurred from the date the losses incurred until the date the losses incurred ± 12 months] ¡À.].

The 6th, 16th, and 8th, of the first instance judgment, “the result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the Ansan University Hospital at Korea,” and the 7th, 7th, of the first instance judgment, “the result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the Ansan University at Korea,” respectively.