1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning Article 2(2) of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is as follows. Thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is identical to that for the judgment of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance

2. Parts used in relation to the amount of compensation;

A. Property damage 1) Loss: Personal information of KRW 10,384,611 (A): The same shall apply to the entry in the column of “basic matters” in the attached amount of damages calculation sheet.

B) Income and operating period: A market for the five-year period of disability rate of 6.9% (invert V-A, contribution rate of 70% to Mabrod Obstruction Evaluation Table) due to damage to normal people’s urban daily wage, 60 years old, later disability, and spine damage, shall be applied, and a 70% contribution to the hospitalization period shall be reflected from January 23, 2016 to March 22, 2016.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the ratio of disability due to the plaintiff's damage to the scale of water shall be based on the ratio of loss of labor ability by 24% in spine V-D-1-b of the Mabrod disability assessment table, ② the degree of contribution by the plaintiff should be reflected by 50%, ③ the period of loss of labor ability should be applied by 6 years.

First of all, Article 5-D-1-b of the Health Team and Mabrid Disability Assessment Table applies to the operation. However, unless there is any proof that the Plaintiff performed the operation outside of the preservation process by the date of closing argument in the trial, the above item cannot be applied as it is.

Therefore, the plaintiff's labor ability loss rate shall be assessed based on 23% according to Mabrid disability assessment table V-A(a certain neological symptoms in X-ray's opinion).

Next, according to the results of fact-finding on the health team and the Director of the D Hospital of the Party, the appraiser judged the level of contribution of this case to 30% according to the more subdivided criteria than the time of the first instance court.