2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 52,729,791 won with 5% interest per annum from February 25, 1999 to the rendering of a judgment in the first instance, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment day.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 31,066,183 won with 5% interest per annum from February 25, 199 to the judgment of the court of first instance, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(a) Facts of recognition;

At around 16:00 on February 24, 1999, Nonparty 1 driven the road adjacent to the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 4 Dong 17 Dobong-dong 17 from the Ycheon Station to the gystal-dong along one lane between the three lanes of the Defendant’s insured vehicle (vehicle number omitted), and changed the two lanes to about 10 km at the speed, while driving the vehicle at about 10 km at about 50 km at about the speed of the Plaintiff’s driving (vehicle number omitted), the latter part of the driver’s seat on the Tco-car in Seoul (vehicle number omitted) No. 50 km at about 10 km at about the speed of the said taxi and sustained the Plaintiff by its shocking the said vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the instant accident that occurred during the operation of the above taxi as an insurer of the above taxi.

C. Whether liability is limited

At the time of the instant accident, Nonparty 1 had been changing the lane to a speed of 10 km per hour. As such, the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, was negligent in neglecting his duty to care in front and left well at the time of the instant accident by properly operating the steering system and the steering system, so as not to go against the said taxi and the foregoing vehicle. Such error of the Plaintiff also caused the accident. In light of the circumstances of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to 10% of the occurrence of the accident, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is limited to the remainder of 90%.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a) Gender: Male;

Date of birth: May 18, 1964

Age: 34 years of age and 9 months of age at the time of the accident;

Name of rental: 38.61 years of age;

(B) Occupation and maximum working age: The Plaintiff was employed by the taxi company (trade name omitted) from December 1, 1995 to work as a taxi driver at the time of the instant accident, but the said company’s retirement age under the collective agreement was 60 years old.

(c)financial assessment of operating capacity;

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff actually gains more than the income of the wage ledger, the plaintiff should make the income of the driver of the vehicle under the basic statistical survey report on the wage structure, not the income specified in the wage ledger, as the basis for calculating the actual income.

In a case where the victim had been working at the workplace at the time of the accident, if objective data exists to determine the actual income at the time of the accident, and if it is possible to calculate the reasonable and objectivity expectation income based on such objective data, the actual income as at the time of the accident shall be calculated. If the statistical income such as the statistical survey report on the basic statistics of the wage structure is higher than the actual income, it may be calculated on the basis of such statistical income only when special circumstances are acknowledged that the amount of monthly income would be higher than the actual income at the time of the accident. (See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da26134 delivered on September 27, 1994, 201Da2901 delivered on July 27, 201, 201, 201Da2901 delivered on July 1, 198, 2001, 197Da3714 delivered on July 16, 198, 201).

On the other hand, in calculating the future lost income to be acquired by a victim due to a tort, if the general daily wage at the time of the closing of argument is a large amount, the general daily wage can be used as the basis thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da13710, Jan. 15, 1991). Since the above income is lower than the monthly income based on the urban daily wage under the following table, the plaintiff is deemed to be able to obtain the income equivalent to the urban daily wage until he reaches 60 years of age, and the daily income shall be calculated on the basis thereof.

(D) The period of hospitalized treatment and rate of loss of labor ability: The determination of loss of labor ability by 100% for three months from the date of the accident shall be reasonable in light of the level and degree of injury, the period of hospitalization, the degree of contribution to contribution, etc.

(E) The loss rate of latter disability and labor ability: The Plaintiff lost 12% labor ability on a permanent basis with the escape certificate of a conical signboard between No. 4-5-6 of the year of the instant accident (proking No. 50%).

(2) Calculation: According to the above facts of recognition, the actual income resulting from the Plaintiff’s instant accident is a total of KRW 27,363,106 as shown below.

2.3 2. 8. 2. 45 2. 7. 40 2. 5 2. 9 2. 5 2. 5 2. 40 2. 5 2. 40 2. 5 2. 5 2. 8 2. 9- 40 2. 5 2. 5 2. 75 2. 745 10. 47. 2. 975 2. 209 42. 209, 413 199- 249- 239 2. 2. 47. 5 2. 947. 2. 745 2. 97. 745 2.19- 7. 1945 2. 7. 194

(b) Medical expenses;

The Plaintiff claimed that KRW 1,320,350 (the Plaintiff spent KRW 379,300 on July 13, 200, however, according to the evidence No. 11-8, the Plaintiff spent KRW 310,00) to treat the injury suffered by the instant accident.

However, since several times from 195, the Plaintiff had been suffering from a traffic accident, and there was a change of spawn on the spawn, such spawn was considered to have contributed to the realization of the injury, and it is reasonable to view that the degree of spawn treatment for the instant accident is 50% in consideration of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings. Therefore, the spawn treatment cost for the instant accident is 660,175 won (=1,320,350 won x 0.5).

(c) Set-off of negligence (10% by negligence);

(1) Actual income: 24,626,795 won (=27,363,106 won) x 0.9)

(2) Medical expenses: 594,157 won (=60,175 won) x 0.9)

(d) Set-off of profits and losses;

Of the pre-treatment costs paid by the Defendant 17,376,90 won, KRW 8,68,495 (=17,376,90 won x 0.5) incurred by the Plaintiff’s negligence and KRW 868,849, which is the part caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence (=17,376,90 won - 8,688,495 won) x 0.1) 9,57,344 won shall be deducted from the above damages.

(e) consolation money;

It is reasonable to determine the amount of KRW 6 million in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the Plaintiff's age, occupation, degree of negligence, degree and degree of injury and disability, and circumstances such as the occurrence of accidents.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 21,663,608 won + 594,157 won + 9,557,344 won + 6,00,000 won following the day following the accident of this case, as the plaintiff seeks, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 25, 1999 to May 4, 2004, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds. Thus, the part against the defendant who ordered payment in excess of the above recognition scope by counting the damages for delay from February 24, 1999 is unfair, but the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be modified so that it can be favorable to the defendant who did not appeal and disadvantageous to the plaintiff who is the appellant. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge) No. 20