1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against plaintiffs A and B, which constitutes an additional payment order under the following.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the liability for damages is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where "Defendant ELI Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant ELI")" is deemed as "Defendant TRI Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant TRI")'s damage liability insurance." Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against the plaintiff A

A. In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the attached Table 1 of the calculation of damages shall be the same as the relevant item, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

1) Personal information on lost income (A) : as stated in the column for “basic matters” in the attached Form 1 calculation sheet of damages amount.

B) Income and operating period: The plaintiff was paid a total of 34,192,750 won [average 2,849,750 won per month (=average 34,192,750 won ± 12)] as salary in 2009 when he worked at the Government Hospital prior to the accident in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's average monthly salary from the date of the accident in this case until December 5, 2026, which is the scheduled date of retirement from the date of the accident in this case, shall be calculated based on the average monthly salary until December 5, 2026 (the 57 years old). The plaintiff's daily income shall be calculated as of December 5, 2029 on the basis of the daily salary of the urban average worker (this case's insurance should exclude the daily night work allowances from among the wages the plaintiff Gap received, but according to the fact-finding inquiry by the court of first instance for the hospital in this case from the date of the accident in this case to the scheduled date of retirement.