1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 321,375,548 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from November 27, 2013 to September 1, 2017 against the Plaintiff.

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

[Supplementary or additional parts] 6 pages 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall include the following:

Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff’s contribution to the rate of loss of labor ability during the Plaintiff’s hospitalization period and the rate of contribution to the Plaintiff’s contribution to the lost income should be reflected. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, regardless of the existence or absence of kings at the time of the instant accident, was able to obtain income equivalent to KRW 8,341,714 per month, and all of them were lost due to hospitalization due to the instant accident. As such, it is reasonable to determine the Plaintiff’s total amount as the actual income during the hospitalization period. The Defendant’s above assertion is acceptable. The part of the first instance judgment 7 pages 6 through 9 of the first instance judgment is as follows.

The Defendant asserts that “(the Defendant was running along the vehicle at the time of the instant accident, and the impact of the vehicle was not significant, and the Plaintiff’s king witness was considerable, and thus, the Plaintiff’s king witness should have contributed to the rate of labor disability loss by at least 70%, and the degree of contribution of the instant accident should be recognized to less than 30%.

However, as seen above, it is reasonable to determine the degree of contribution of the Plaintiff’s accident to the rate of loss of labor ability by 50%, and there is no evidence to reverse it.

The defendant's above assertion is dismissed) "25,394,600 won (i.e., 50,789,200 won x 50%)" of the 7th 12th e.g., the 7th e., the 12th e.g. "(i., 50,789,200 won x 50%).

The 8th sentence of the first instance judgment, the 6% annual rate prescribed by the Insurance Business Act, is as follows.

5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act (the plaintiff is seeking 6% damages for delay under the Commercial Act, but the plaintiff is seeking a direct claim against the insurer.