The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on whether A is a “other person” as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that A is a “other person” as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, unless A was actually involved in the act of individual driving of the instant vehicle, even if A was a person in charge of transporting explosives and was on the top of the instant vehicle

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In doing so, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on others and driving assistants under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

2. According to the record as to the grounds of appeal on the number of monthly working days, A may recognize the fact that a person is a wage income earner belonging to a macromotion picture company, and “unit wage of 82,268 won” under the damages calculation table of the judgment below, rather than a general daily wage, as “average wage” of A.

According to the above facts, it is just that the court below calculated the monthly income by recognizing the monthly operating days as 30 days in calculating the lost income of A, and there is no error in the calculation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.