1. The order of the first instance judgment, including the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court, is as follows.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is set forth in Article 3-a of the judgment of the first instance.

C. Paragraph 1 is described as follows, and the calculation table in the attached Form of the judgment of the first instance shall be replaced with the calculation table, and the 4th class 8 to 9 of the 4th class shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the fact that there is no dispute (applicable to recognition), the entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the substantial fact in this court, the result of the physical examination of the head of the High University Uniform Hospital at the first instance court, as a result of the physical examination of the head of the High University at the High University at the first instance court,

2. The height portion is as follows: (a) Since the unit price of wages was increased after the Plaintiff’s claim was committed by the harmful act in this case, the unit price, which is the basis for calculating the lost profit, shall be determined as the nearest time at the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court; and (b) the period before the date of appraisal for the period of temporary disability which is the basis for the loss

2) Determination A) In principle, the actual income loss suffered by the victim who lost labor ability due to a physical disability caused by a tort, which is the nearest unit price at the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, should be calculated based on the income at the time of the tort. However, if the income which is the basis of the lost profit was increased between the time of the closure of arguments in the fact-finding court and the time of the closure of arguments in the fact-finding court, the subsequent loss of the lost

(Supreme Court Decision 2002Da30275 Decided September 24, 2002). The following circumstances, which may be acknowledged by the facts and the purport of the entire pleading, namely, ① the day when the harmful act of this case occurred, was around six years and eight months before September 26, 201, which was the day when the argument of this court was concluded on January 24, 201, ② the unit price of the city’s heavy wage of the first half of the year 2011, which was KRW 72,415, compared to the second half of the year 2017.