1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this part of the plaintiff's assertion is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the Defendant’s main defense is as stated in the relevant part of the judgment of the first instance court, except for the deletion of “the victim of a traffic accident,” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the result of the request for the appraisal of the appraiser G, the result of the request for the supplementation, and the result of the request for the supplementation of the body supplementation; (b) the result of the request for the physical reexamination of the head of the Yong-nam University Hospital of the first instance for the physical examination; and (c) the result of the request for the supplementation of the body supplementation with respect to the head of the Yong-Namnam University Hospital of the

3. Determination on the part of the claim for dental treatment costs added to the purport of the entire pleadings as to Gap evidence 24 and evidence 25, and the result of the physical examination entrustment to the director of Yong-Nam University Hospital of the first instance court, the following facts are met: (a) the Plaintiff’s 31 pharmacilization for the instant accident; (b) the cruc wave for which the crusium No. 32 was damaged by the crusium without any flood control; (c) on September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff performed a crucium treatment and crucium treatment for the crusium No. 31 at the K dental clinic located in Daegu-gu L, Daegu; (d) the Plaintiff performed a crucium treatment and crucium treatment for the crusium No. 32; (d) the Plaintiff’s 100 crucium treatment for the 32 crucium at one time; and (d) the Plaintiff’s 100 cre treatment for the 300 cco.