All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the first ground of appeal, even if there is no specific determination on the matters alleged by the parties to the judgment, if it is possible to find out that the parties received or rejected such assertion in light of the overall purport of the reasons for the judgment, it cannot be said that the determination was omitted.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Da89477, Nov. 13, 2014). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendants asserted that “the labor disability rate of 25% due to king disability should be considered in calculating the Plaintiff’s lost income.” In determining the scope of liability for damages, the lower court did not consider the Plaintiff’s failure to separately state the Plaintiff’s assertion in calculating the lost income.”

Examining these circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment may be deemed to include the purport of rejecting the Defendants’ above assertion.

There is no error of omission in judgment.

(2) Even if the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion was omitted, there was another disability unrelated to the king’s disability due to an accident, while the victim was suffering from the accident, while the victim was actually employed in the state of the king’s disability, and when calculating the lost income based on such real income, it is unnecessary to take such income into account in calculating the lost income, since the victim obtained such income even in the state of the king’s disability.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, the plaintiff was suffering from the damage to the king's main body, and the plaintiff was involved in the accident of this case.