1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The reasons for the acceptance and ex officio correction of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the court of first instance added "the court of first instance" in front of the last three main sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the fourth 18th 18th m "the date of sentencing from October 6, 2014, which is the date of the occurrence of the instant accident, to be "the date of sentencing from October 7, 2014, which is the date of the instant accident, is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the date of the occurrence of the instant accident," and is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is evident that "from October 6, 2014," in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, is a clerical error, and thus, it is corrected ex officio from October 7, 2014 to "the date of sentencing."

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that it is unreasonable to deduct the portion of contribution to the plaintiff's injury from the actual income during the hospitalization period. However, the degree of contribution to the plaintiff's injury caused by the accident in this case is 75% as stated in the first instance court, and therefore, it is natural to deduct the amount equivalent to the contribution to the contribution to the plaintiff's injury from the actual income during the hospitalization period.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that since July 20, 2016, which submitted a physical appraisal report to the first instance court, was the starting point for the period of the loss of labor ability, the Plaintiff’s loss of labor ability should be recognized until July 19, 2017, which was one year thereafter.

On December 13, 2016, the defendant filed an application for fact-finding with the Director of I Hospital (In charge of Magnova and Professor J) 2-B.

From October 6, 2014, “the period during which the Plaintiff was unable to lose labor ability due to an accident” was determined as “from October 6, 2014, to be the date of the award,” and on March 16, 2017, the neuma and the Professor J sent sent the answer to “the maximum of one year, even if the Plaintiff was fluent,” namely, “the maximum of one year.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the first instance court's decision that the starting point of the period of loss of labor ability is the date of the accident.

C. At present, the Plaintiff is treated due to the restriction on the pain, low-forest, and scopic scopic angle of the light.