1. Of the part concerning the claim for damages against the property of the first instance judgment, the following additional payments are ordered.

1. The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance at the occurrence of liability

(Article 420 main text of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The court's explanation on this part of the scope of liability for damages is to add "Evidence No. 14 through 16 of A" to "Evidence No. 4 of A" of Part 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and Article 2-A of the reasoning of the judgment of first instance.

(c) the Commission;

F. The same shall apply to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for the use of each appeal as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) In full view of the following facts: (a) the part after repair on March 3, 420; (b) the statement of evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 10 of the expenses for treatment (property damage) Nos. 2, 3, 6, and 10 of the expenses for treatment (property damage); and (c) the overall purport of the argument as a result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the head of the high university and the head of the new university and the hospital, the Plaintiff’s tort may

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the expenses paid to the regular beyond the scope of the injury of this case are also incurred by the injury of the plaintiff, since the expenses paid to the regular beyond the scope of the injury of this case to the internal department (I), the internal department of the K, the members of the O, the members of the P, the members of the K, the members of the K, the members of the K, the members of the K, the members of the K, the members of the K, the members of the K Council (MA, the RR, the Shanwon), the pharmacy (T pharmacy, U,

However, the following facts are revealed by adding up the images of the evidence No. 5 (including the paper numbers) in the above evidence: (a) the Plaintiff has been travelling to a golf course located in Jeju-do for three days from September 8, 2014; (b) the Plaintiff appears not to need to undergo additional treatment due to the instant injury in accordance with the result of the court’s entrustment of appraisal to the head of the High University Uniform Hospital; (c) after September 8, 2014, the Plaintiff appears to have received additional treatment due to the instant injury in the department of general surgery or rehabilitation; and (d) in the case of the above pharmacy members, there is no evidence showing the specific details of the medical treatment in the case of the above pharmacy, the only data submitted by the Plaintiff alone, or the expenses spent to the above pharmacy or the Hanwon, after September 8, 2014.