1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 264,517,922 against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance and the defendant's aforementioned amount were from November 28, 2013 to April 28, 2017.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as the part of “liability for damages” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the rejection of the result of the court’s commission of appraisal to the appraiser J which is insufficient to recognize each of the plaintiffs and the defendant’s respective arguments.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the scope of damages is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning "the scope of damages" under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following parts. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

[3] Future treatment costs: 27,515,938 (A) Party’s assertion (i.e., 43,149,372, which is premised on paying future treatment costs after the date of closing argument in the first instance trial of Plaintiff A’s argument, the remainder of the future treatment costs after deducting the Plaintiff’s negligence ratio from the total of 43,149,372.

D. The rehabilitation treatment costs, etc. assessed as necessary for two years from the Defendant’s argument during the future treatment costs do not appear to have been paid by the Plaintiff A by the date of the closing of the argument in this case, and two years from the date of the instant accident as of the date of the closing of the argument in this case. Therefore, the future treatment costs

B) The expected amount of damages, such as future treatment costs, can be assessed only for damages actually incurred if the expected period has already expired at the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court. Thus, if the expected treatment costs have been spent until the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, if not, whether such costs would be incurred as at the time of the closure of arguments and whether such costs would be incurred in the future should be assessed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 2000).