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 KRW 59,563,345.

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the liability for damages are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the defendant's assertion added by the court below. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

In the judgment of the defendant on the additional note of the trial of the party branch, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was negligent in operating the automobile of this case without attaching it in spite of the duty to attach a low speed vehicle sign, etc., in the case of the driver of the party branch, but it is difficult to view that the statement in the document in the document in subparagraph 9 of this paragraph alone is the duty to attach a low speed vehicle sign, etc. to the driver of the vehicle branch and to operate the automobile branch,

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. In principle, calculation shall be made on a monthly basis below the scope of the liability for damages, but less than a monthly basis and less than a won shall be discarded, and the present price shall be calculated in accordance with the headmanial Calculation Act, which deducts the intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as a simple interest, and the absence of a separate explanation among the parties’ arguments shall be excluded.

The facts of recognition 1) Gender: The age of 55 years and 8 months at the time of J's accident: The current status of occupation and income: The 12,00,000 won that the plaintiff received in December 201 as a bonus and received in the last month in the last month of each year. However, the plaintiff was paid 1,50,000 won as salary in December 201, and the 12,00,000,000 won received in December 201 as salary. In light of the witness's testimony of the court of first instance that the plaintiff's business activity was paid in December 201, the plaintiff continued to be paid in December 1, 200, the 12,00,000 won as salary in the first instance court's testimony that the plaintiff's business activity was paid in December 201, the 12,000 won as salary in the first instance court's evidence No. 8 through 10, and the result of the fact inquiry by the court of the first instance court's.