1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, payment in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below to the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. 1) The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following addition, that is, the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court’s explanation is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2) Additional part of the judgment of the court of first instance which

“The Plaintiff also received temporary layoffs 7,133,030 won, medical care benefits 9,234,250 won, and disability benefits 23,804,050 won, respectively, after the instant accident.”

B. 1) The reasoning for this part of the court’s explanation is as follows: (a) this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is to dismiss “this court” as “court of first instance”; and (b) this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in paragraph 2, except for the dismissal or addition as follows; and (c) this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is to be cited or added as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (d) The following is added between the fourth decision of the court of

“In calculating the income that serves as the basis for lost earnings, the Defendant asserts that KRW 43,200, which is the actual salary that the Defendant actually paid to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident. In light of the probability that the Defendant’s employee would engage in ordinary labor if the amount of ordinary labor wages exceeds the income that the Defendant actually paid to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, if the amount of ordinary labor wages at the time of the closing of argument exceeds the actual income at the time of the loss of labor capacity, the Defendant’s ordinary labor wages should be selected and calculated based on the amount of such wages, and the special circumstance should be proved by the alleged employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3134, Feb. 28, 1995). However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge such special circumstance.