1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The "statement of calculation of damages" in Section 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the following table:

On the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, “Plaintiff B, C, and D shall be deleted by the wife and children of Plaintiff A,” and “the last page of the judgment of the second instance.”

The 3rd side of the judgment of the first instance court shall be referred to as "Plaintiffs" and the 3rd side of the judgment of the first instance.

From 3th to 4th 2th 10th 10th 10th 10th 2th 2th 200.

“2) Income and operating period: The Plaintiff has been a farmer for at least 10 years at the time of the instant accident until he reaches the age of 25 and 65. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of actual income should be calculated based on statistical income of an agricultural farmer with work experience of at least 10 years in the report on the actual status quo of employment by type of employment. However, in light of the result of the order issued by the court of first instance to submit tax information to the head of the tax office, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff actually earned income equivalent to the statistical income, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments and arguments in each statement or image of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 18, 19, and 21 (including paper numbers), namely, the plaintiff resided in Leecheon-si H up to the age of 50,000 at the time of the instant accident to the age of 50; there is no evidence to deem that there was a special problem in the plaintiff's health at the time of the instant accident; and there is a trend of aging the labor ability in Korea, the plaintiff is equivalent to the daily wage for rural communities (25 days per month) until he reaches the age of 65.