보험에관한 소송
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 42,946,650 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related amount, from February 4, 2014 to September 28, 2017.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the pertinent part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of
2. In principle, a period of time for calculating the scope of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 10 shall be discarded;
The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.
In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.
In calculating the actual income of a person who runs a personal business for the calculation of monthly income, the amount of the capital invested in the business should be deducted from the total amount of the income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2455, Mar. 24, 1987). The average monthly income shall be calculated by deducting necessary expenses, such as vehicle maintenance expenses, various insurance premiums, expenses for attracting and managing customers, and the amount of the invested capital income from the total income, from the amount of the monthly income, and by deducting the amount of the invested capital equivalent to the individual's remuneration for the work. In addition, each of the evidence set forth above shall be included in Gap evidence No. 12 through No. 17 (including the number) and the first instance court's talent education (hereinafter referred to as "occupational education").
Further, the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by adding the results of the fact-finding reply to the fact-finding, namely, ① the Plaintiff received monthly average 3,146,650 won from talent education for three months from December 2, 2013 to February 2, 2014, ② there is room to regard the above payment as compensation for the Plaintiff’s labor in light of the fact that talent education withheld and paid taxes, such as income tax and resident tax, from the amount to be paid to the Plaintiff, and ③ the Plaintiff as a personal business income