1. The Defendant’s KRW 92,532,361 as well as 5% per annum from May 18, 2016 to December 20, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 13 through 20, evidence Nos. 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, and 37, the Defendant may recognize the fact that, around May 18, 2016, around 11:00, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the Plaintiff by drinking the Plaintiff’s left eye with drinking in the vicinity of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on two occasions, and destroying the floor up to the floor of the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by such tort.

2. Specific amount of damages;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the statement Nos. 5 and 6 evidence, the result of the physical examination of the head of the hospital in this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s correction trial force was reduced by the Defendant’s tort, and the Plaintiff’s visual disability remains permanently. The foregoing visual disability amounting to 24% of the total labor capacity loss rate for telegraph, the Plaintiff’s operation of solid water for about 20 years, and solid water constitutes a waste collection and transportation business. The Plaintiff’s operation constitutes a waste collection and transportation business, and the Plaintiff’s income for less than 5 years to 10 years was 3,283,000 for monthly income as of 2015.

Meanwhile, the maximum working age, which serves as the basis of lost income, may be recognized by a fact-finding court, based on specific circumstances, such as the number of workers by age, employment rate, labor participation rate, occupational conditions, and retirement age limitation, in addition to the social and economic conditions, such as the average remaining life expectancy, economic level, employment condition, etc. of Korean citizens, and by examining the overall circumstances, such as the number of workers by age, employment rate, and labor force participation rate by occupation, as well as the occupational conditions and retirement age limit by occupation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da46491, Dec. 23, 1997). The maximum working age, which serves as the basis of lost income, may be determined by examining the specific circumstances, such as the given party’s age, occupation, career, and health