1. The judgment of the first instance on the principal lawsuit is modified as follows. A.

Attached Form

With respect to the accidents described in the list.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the establishment of the liability for damages is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of

(1) The court of first instance held that the plaintiff's liability is limited to 90% even in view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, and that the plaintiff and the defendant did not have any error as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant). 2. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the above evidence: Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul's evidence Nos. 5 through 8, 10, and 11; the results of physical appraisal of the court of first instance and this court's G hospital; and the results of fact inquiry by the plaintiff and the defendant.

(Calculation's convenience period shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded. The current price calculation at the time of the accident of the amount of damages shall be in accordance with the fractional interest rate which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. And it shall be rejected that the parties' arguments do not separately provide for.

The Defendant asserts that the Urban Daily Wage of 22 days per month was derived from the statistical income of 4,213,000 won for the employees of “science experts and related positions” in the report on the actual employment status of each type of employment as a research institute for new drugs development for 30 years from the time of the instant accident. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant, as a research institute for new drugs development for 30 years from the date of the instant accident, had earned income equivalent to the statistical income of 4,213,000 won for the employees of “science experts and related positions.”

In order to recognize a lost income based on the estimated statistical income of workers engaged in the same occupation with the same career as the defendant, the defendant actually earned such income at the time of the accident.

It should be recognized that there was a substantial probability that such income could have been obtained, and such a circumstance is recognized.