1.The judgment of the first instance court, including the modification of a counterclaim claim in the trial at the trial, shall be modified as follows:

Attached Form

List.

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 where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The “statement of calculation of damages” in Section 9 of the judgment of the first instance shall be replaced by the following table, and the “statement of calculation of damages” in Section 10 shall be deleted.

Part 4 through 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted.

The 5th to 13th shall be deleted from the judgment of the first instance.

The 5th to 18th of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.

“(b)” or “(d) through (f)” through “(c) through (e) of the judgment of the first instance court of the first instance of “(excluding the portion which the Plaintiff is deemed to have already paid to the Defendant from among the medical expenses and medicine expenses claimed by the Defendant, and the part which is deemed not to have a proximate causal relation with the accident of this case)” of the KRW 1,552,264 [excluding the part which the Plaintiff is deemed to have already paid to the Defendant from among the medical expenses and medicine expenses claimed by the Defendant, and the part which is deemed not to have any proximate causal relation with the accident of this case].

On the 6th 13th 14th 14th 14th 6th 6th 14th 14th 14th 2th 2th 2006, “The results of each physical examination commissioned to the head of the Seoul Hospital Hospital of this Court and the results of each fact-finding.”

The 6th to 7th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed by the following 15th of the 6th to 3th of the 7th of the judgment.

“F. If so, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant due to the instant accident does not exceed the following amount, and the Plaintiff’s 24,456,287 won (i.e., property damage KRW 15,00,000 for consolation money of KRW 15,00,000 for consolation money of KRW 9,456,287) and its scope from January 10, 2009, which is the date of the instant accident, to resist the existence or scope of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant.