1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. In relation to each of the traffic accidents listed in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the entry of "1. Basic Facts" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s claim is limited to KRW 150,00,00 for consolation money, and the Plaintiff’s damage liability due to the second accident of this case is limited to KRW 909,810 for consolation money (i.e., KRW 150,000 for consolation money (= KRW 759,810 for the period of hospitalization of KRW 150,000). However, the Defendant is disputing this, and thus, the Defendant is arguing that there is no obligation above the above amount of damage.

The sum of the Plaintiff’s liability for damages under the foregoing assertion is 1,059,810 won, which differs from KRW 1,059,510 in the purport of the claim.

The calculation error seems to be an error.

The plaintiff alleged by the defendant is obligated to pay the defendant the amount of damages KRW 34,168,90 due to the first accident of this case (=the amount of damages KRW 1,00,000 for taxi expenses of KRW 3,168,900 for taxi expenses of KRW 30,000 for taxi expenses of KRW 1,000 for taxi expenses of KRW 30,000 for the second accident of this case) and the amount of damages of KRW 68,387,140 for the second accident of this case (=the amount of KRW 6,243,140 for the taxi expenses of KRW 2,14,00 for the taxi expenses of KRW 2,14,00 for the taxi expenses of KRW 50,00 for the lost income of KRW 102,56,000 for the taxi expenses of KRW 14,0

Judgment

The court's explanation on this part of the liability for damages is the same as the entry of "2.b. the occurrence of liability for damages" in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In addition to the rejection of the Defendant’s personal examination result as to lost earnings exceeding KRW 2,215,828, which is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion as evidence of the party’s actual income, the Defendant’s assertion is identical to the entry of “2.c. (1) lost income” in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Defendant of the king medical expense amounting to KRW 9,412,040 (i.e., the first accident of this case).