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 as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts being cited or added. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or written in addition] On Part IV, the following shall be added to the decision of the first instance.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the urban daily wage should be applied to the plaintiff.

In calculating the future lost income of victims residing in rural areas at the time of the accident, at least the daily wage for rural communities shall be deemed to be able to obtain in principle, and it may be calculated as urban daily wage only where the victim is deemed to reside in the city because he/she leaves the rural area where he/she is the primary residence, and where specific circumstances are deemed to exist in the city.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff’s daily income should be calculated on the basis of the daily wage for rural communities, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of the arguments and evidence presented earlier, i.e., the Plaintiff, together with his parents engaged in agriculture prior to the instant accident, was serving as public interest service personnel to perform the duty of military service, and the Plaintiff’s completion of the duty of military service to the rural community while leaving the rural community and residing in the city.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The attached table of calculation of damages in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied in accordance with the attached table of calculation of damages in this court.

2. In conclusion, the Defendant’s defense as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from August 9, 2012, which was the date of the instant accident, as to KRW 73,433,927 and KRW 70,739,01, which was cited by the first instance judgment among the Plaintiff.