1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 34,673,438 as well as November 2009.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows, except for the following changes, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main

2. The modified part;

(a) change the 7th 12 to 17th tier (2) portion as follows:

(ii) calculations (if less than KRW 100, less than

(1) ① From February 30, 209 to February 26, 2010, 1,493,98 won x 1,493,998 won x 1,493,98 won x 100% x 2.9752 x 4,444,942 won x (2) 4 months x 1,493,98 won x 27% x 3.9105 (=6.857-2,97-2, 9752) x 3.1,57,415 won ＋ ＋ 1,493,98 won x 1,498 won x 1,498 won x 1,498 won x 1,498 won x 7.385 won x 538,197

B. 8 .40,49,547 won (i.e., KRW 57,856,496 x 0.7) from a lost income (i.e., KRW 41,253,632 won (=58,93,761 won x 0.7)

(c)be changed from 3 up to 9 4 pages below 8:

【Compensation for damages is aimed at compensating for damages, so it is possible that the victim deducts the amount of compensation for temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits from the amount of compensation for actual income in cases where the victim has already received temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits under the Labor Standards Act or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act is in a mutually complementary relationship by the same nature of the damage. Therefore, even if the amount of temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits received by the victim exceeds the passive amount of damages recognized by the court, the excess portion shall not be deducted from the amount of compensation for damages whose nature is different from the period of time. Since temporary layoff benefits are corresponding to the lost income during the period of suspension, it shall be deducted from the amount of damages equivalent to the lost income during the period of suspension (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da61703, Apr. 25, 1995). According to health care and evidence No. 2, according to the Plaintiff’s statement