1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(4) [excluding the part of “the conclusion.”] [the part that is dismissed or added] / [the part that is removed or added] / [the part that is “the instant supplementary insurance contract”) / [hereinafter “the instant supplementary insurance contract] / 15, and the part that is “the instant automobile insurance contract” / 17 of the first instance judgment (hereinafter “instant supplementary insurance contract”).

In the third part of the judgment of the first instance, the phrase “41,374,893 won” in the second part of the judgment of the first instance is deemed to read “41,374,893 won (the lost income of KRW 31,870,893 won and KRW 9,504,000)” and the phrase “ March 2, 2017” to read “ March 27, 2017.”

The first instance court's 4th 6th 6th , 7th , 9th , 11th , and 5th 2nd , 5th , and 8th 1st 8th , as "I".

In the fourth instance judgment of the first instance, the “41,374,893 won” in the fourth instance judgment of the first instance is deemed to be “41,374,893 won (actual income of KRW 31,870,893 and KRW 9,504,00).”

At the end of the last sentence of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added:

Meanwhile, in light of the circumstances such as the background and result of the instant accident, and the degree and degree of the H’s injury, it is reasonable to view consolation money as KRW 7,00,000.

[Judgment of the court of first instance does not contain any particular statement as to consolation money, but since the judgment of the court of first instance states that the remaining claims are dismissed including consolation money, it cannot be deemed that the judgment was omitted (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da508, May 28, 1968). The judgment of the court of first instance is not deemed to have been omitted (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da508, May 28, 1968). The "11,537,819 won (=14,422,274 won x 80%) of the 5th judgment of the court of first instance is "17,137,819 won (=21,42,274 won (=14,422,274 won) 7,00,000 won) x 80%).

2. Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff KRW 17,137,819 and KRW 11,537,819 among them, the Defendant is the date of the judgment of the first instance, which recognized that it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation from November 7, 2017, on the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.