1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant B which exceeds the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the part concerning "3-(c) opening expenses" and "3's theory of dispute resolution" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is cited as the part concerning the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification as shown in the attached Form attached with the calculation table of damages.

- The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's employer's liability is recognized, the vocational coefficient is applied, the limitation of liability, and the amount of consolation money, and the defendant Eul asserts to the effect that the whole of the defendant Eul is about the loss rate of labor ability, but the decision of the court of first instance

2. 3-(c) nursing expenses for the parts after the second operation: It is reasonable to view that there was a need for an adult nursing for about one month after the accident in light of the Plaintiff’s degree of injury, treatment details, hospitalization period, etc., and one adult nursing for 44-day in total after the second operation.

(The result of the first instance physical examination, etc.). However, since the details of king medical expenses recognized earlier include 12-day nursing expenses (Evidence No. 5-5), the nursing expenses for the remaining 32-day nursing expenses should be separately recognized.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 26,496,130 won per annum from March 23, 2013, which is the date of the occurrence of the instant accident to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from January 15, 2015 and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. As such, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as there is no ground. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed as there is no ground. Among the judgment of the court of first instance that has different conclusions, the part against the defendant B ordering payment exceeding the above recognition amount is unfair.