1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows:

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The period of time for calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and less than a month shall be included in the side on which the appraised value is less than a month, and the net income less than the last month and less than a won shall be deemed to be discarded, respectively, and the present price calculation at the time of the accident in this case shall be made by the method of simple interest deduction at the rate of 5/12 per month.

It shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 7 (including each number), and the result of the commission of each physical examination to the I Hospital Head by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. On-site income: 187,624,513 won 1): The Plaintiff’s age and gender: The date of birth of a male: The age as of July 10, 2017 (the age as of July 10, 2017): the maximum working age until he/she reaches the age of 65 (before December 12, 2036) (the maximum working age until December 12, 2036) shall be deemed to be the age of 60. However, as our social and economic structure and living conditions rapidly improve and develop and improve the legal system, deeming the maximum working age of a person performing ordinary physical labor by the age of 65 is reasonable from the empirical rule (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da248909, Feb. 21, 2019), and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s maximum working age differently from the maximum working age in light of the above empirical rule as the Plaintiff’s maximum working age as the age of 65 years.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's above argument.

3) Income standard: Income (the 22th day of the same month) equivalent to urban daily wage (the existence and content of a report on the actual status of wages in construction business issued by the J Association is significant to the court, and the changed and published wage is applied until the closing of argument.