1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On March 19, 2014, around 16:45, in front of the C gas station in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. On No. 3 of the judgment of the first instance court, the height of the part is deleted “The defendant may recognize the negligence that did not wear a safety cap at the time of the instant accident, as well as the negligence that could be found at the time of the instant accident.”

From 5th to 8th of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

1) The plaintiff asserts that when personal information case No. 2017Na5745 case number No. 2017Na5745 case number No. 201, 2017 is confirmed as non-existence of limited debt No. 2017Na5745 case number No. 1, the plaintiff has to recognize that 50% of the total amount of actual income during the period of hospitalization should be calculated as to the minimum amount of actual income during the 16th day of 2014-3-19 day of G term rental 201-8-26 maximum working age (tax 2020-1-2 b) 60 operation day of 2020-60 day of the date of occurrence of the accident, 7.00% of the individual number of labor ability loss rate (%) 3.50% of 3.0% of 10.0% 6.39% 4.20% of 10% of the total amount of total income during the hospitalization period.

In general, in cases of receiving hospitalized treatment due to an accident, unless there are special circumstances to deem that, in light of the fact that the treatment was conducted for injury unrelated to the accident in question or for the medical treatment even though it does not need to be medically hospitalized treatment, the period of hospitalization is clearly long, and thus, it is unreasonable to view that all or part of the hospitalized treatment was unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49252, Dec. 12, 2003). As such, it should be deemed that the Defendant lost labor ability during the period of hospitalization due to the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49252, Dec. 12, 2003).