1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance partially dismissed and added the following judgments, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The height (1) 3 pages.

1.(b)

(1) Each “satisfy” in subsection (1) is regarded as a “satfying”.

(2) 4 pages

1.(b)

(3) The portion of the “comfore treatment costs” in paragraph (3) is as follows.

1) The amount of expected medical expenses, such as future medical expenses, may be compensated for damages incurred only if the expected period has already expired at the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court. As such, with respect to the expected medical expenses up to the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, whether such expenses were actually incurred in the actual medical expenses, and, if not, whether such expenses would be incurred in the future even at the time of the closure of arguments (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da51831, Feb. 26, 199). 2) In light of the above legal principles, according to the health team, the first instance court’s entrustment of appraisal to the head of the SiltoTol University Seoul Mother Hospital and the inquiry reply, according to the results of the appraisal commission to the head of the Siltory Hospital and the fact-finding inquiry, the injury in the instant case caused an injury to the Plaintiff during three years from November 12, 2015, and the medical expenses were recognized as necessary for the treatment of the Plaintiff.

3. On the other hand, however, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff spent medical expenses for the treatment of the above disability until September 13, 2018, which is the date of the closing of argument in the trial, and thus, the future treatment expenses for the above period cannot be acknowledged. Considering the circumstance that the Plaintiff did not receive the treatment for the said period from November 12, 2015, which was about 2 years and 10 months after the date of the completion of the said period from the date of the closing of argument in the trial, to the date of the completion of the said period, the date of the said period is the scheduled date of the completion of the period from the date of the closing of argument in the trial.