1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Part 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is added or added, shall be 16 to 19.

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff should limit the liability of the defendants by taking account of their respective descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendants' above assertion is without merit, since they did not enter the construction site of this case where the risk of abortion, such as steel framed, exists and the plaintiff did not properly look at the surrounding conditions.

5 to 6 pages 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the table) are as follows.

According to the results of physical appraisal and fact-finding, the plaintiff asserted that 17% of the loss rate of labor ability due to Mabrid disability assessment table 2, 9-B-1, and occupational coefficient 6% of the Mabrid disability assessment table 2, 9-B-2 shall be added to 27% of the loss rate of labor ability for 7 years and 27% of the loss rate of labor ability for Mabrid disability 2, 9-2. Thus, according to the results of physical appraisal and fact-finding on the K Hospital outside of the first instance court's K Hospital (M of appraisal), 3 times of the first instance court's opinion, 17% of the loss rate of labor ability due to Mabrid disability 17% of the Mabrid disability 6% of the Mabrid disability 2, Mabrid disability 6% of the Mabrid disability 6% of the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff can be engaged in the restoration of Mabrid disability 2, 197.