1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition to or after the part in the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “each video as evidence Nos. 7 and 5-1, 2, and 6 of the evidence Nos. 5” is added to the 3rd 4 to 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The attached table of calculation of damages in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be replaced by the attached table of calculation of damages in the judgment of the party.

The fourth to nine parallels in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be conducted in the following manner:

“2) The maximum working age and income: The following shall be added at the fifth end of the first instance judgment, referring to urban daily wage, work on 22th day of each month, and until he reaches the age of 65. The Defendant asserts that the rate of loss of labor capacity under the Mloved Disability Assessment Table constitutes 2% because the Plaintiff’s wearing hearing aids falls under the range of 20 feet from home to home, and that the rate of loss of labor capacity under the Mloved Disability Assessment Table falls under 15 feet, but according to the results of physical appraisal commissioned to the J Hospital of the first instance court, the appraisal was assessed as 2.2% in consideration of the Plaintiff’s age and occupation based on the Mloddrid Disability Assessment Table, and the above appraisal is not deemed unlawful or unjust. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable.

In the case where the labor ability is reduced again in the status of partial loss of the ability to work due to the multiple disability rate, taking into account the disability of the king in the first instance judgment, the degree of loss of the ability to work due to the previous disability should be taken into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1, 201).