1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the following part ordering payment.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition 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 in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence after confirming whether there is a vehicle in the direction of the change in the lane by Defendant A, and neglecting the duty of care to safely change the course. Thus, the defendant A is jointly and severally liable for damages suffered by the victimized employee under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as an automobile operator under Article 10 of the Self-Help Act and Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act (hereinafter “Self-Appellant Act”).

B. With respect to the amount of damages suffered by injured workers within the scope of the liability for damages, it shall be as indicated in the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation for Damages, except the following separate statements (the present shall be calculated in accordance with the method of Hofmanial Calculation that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, less than a month for the convenience of calculation, less than a month for the convenience of calculation, and less than a won) and it shall be rejected unless the parties'

(1) In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for temporary disability compensation benefits and recourse against disability benefits, which have already been paid with respect to passive damages equivalent to 18% of the loss rate of working ability until the completion of the pain period and the maximum working age after the completion of treatment; however, in the first instance court, the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim were modified and the part of the claim corresponding to this part was withdrawn, and thus, in the first instance, the court shall only determine the amount of damages during the hospitalization period only from the passive damages (the matters not stated individually are as indicated in

(A) Medical care period: Each hospitalization period from July 20, 2009 to January 28, 2010, and from March 27, 2012 to April 16, 2012.