1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the liability for damages are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from No. 2, No. 6 to No. 3, No. 7). Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition to the matters stated below the scope of liability for damages, it shall be as stated in the attached Form of Compensation Calculation Table.

(Period shall be calculated on a monthly basis. The current price at the time of the accident shall be calculated on the basis of the discount method that deducts the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month, and the rejection of separate statements). 【The ground for recognition】 Each description of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 21 through 23, and the result of physical appraisal commissioned by the court of first instance to the Mayor of Tol University, Seoul Sung-si Hospital and the purport of the entire arguments, as a result of fact inquiry, the entire purport of the arguments.

A. Personal information 1: as indicated in the “basic matters” list for calculation of the amount of damages in attached Form 2: (2) Income and operating period: The ordinary person’s urban daily wage, the Plaintiff, until the age of 60, should be deemed to have up to December 24, 2025, from the age of 65 to the age of 65.

However, the maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating the actual income of a person who mainly engages in labor, shall be deemed to be until he/she reaches 60 years of age in light of the empirical rule. However, in extenuating circumstances where a person is able to drive beyond 60 years of age by excluding the foregoing empirical rule in light of such specific circumstances as his/her age, occupation, work experience, and health status, the maximum working age may be recognized beyond 60 years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da7847, Jan. 16, 2013). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, in the instant case, is insufficient to acknowledge special circumstances to recognize the Plaintiff’s maximum working age as 65 years above 60 years recognized under the empirical rule, and there is no other evidence to support this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion

3) The residual disability and labour capacity loss rate A.