1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part ordering the payment between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and D Co., Ltd.

1. As cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the “amount of damages equivalent to the lost income” portion resulting from the change of the Plaintiff’s maximum working age, the main grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, C, and D, (whether each liability for damages was incurred against the Defendants, the Plaintiff’s income, the amount of multiple disability, kingl, kingl, and comparative negligence, etc.) are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. However, even if each evidence submitted in the court of first instance was discovered, the fact-finding and determination by the court of first instance

Therefore, the court's explanation about the instant case is "the part of the "amount of damages" in the judgment of the court of first instance.

- 2 'paragraph 2' and b'

Paragraph (h) and (h)

In addition to the following cases, the part of the "paragraph" is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. “A.-2(2) maximum working age” ii) when a fact-finding court recognizes the maximum working age that serves as the basis for calculating lost earnings, the maximum working age may be determined by examining all the circumstances, such as the population of workers by age, employment rate or labor participation rate, working conditions by occupation, and retirement age limit, in addition to social and economic conditions, such as average remaining life of citizens, economic level, and employment conditions, and other relevant factors, and deriving the presumed maximum working age in light of the empirical rule, or taking into account specific circumstances, such as the victim’s age, occupation

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da100920, May 13, 2011). Meanwhile, as Korea’s social and economic structure and living conditions rapidly improve, develop, and improve legal system, deeming that it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to view that it is possible to operate between the age of 60 and the age of 65, barring any special circumstances, as the social and economic structure and living conditions of the Republic of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909 Decided February 21, 2019). Examining the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, physical labor, etc.