1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the lost income damages is remanded, including the claim for extension by this court.

Around 07:20 on December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the first instance court claiming damages equivalent to KRW 110,880,716 against the Defendant, by asserting that the Defendant was injured by shocking the speed of the village bus (C) operated by the Defendant, due to the shock that occurred over the speed limit of the speed limit. The first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim by citing an amount equivalent to KRW 66,336,767 among the above claims.

The defendant appealed against this, and the plaintiff appealed the incidental appeal, and the court prior to the remanding of the case rendered a judgment changing the claim amount to KRW 63,249,229.

As to this, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed a final appeal. The Supreme Court, in order to recognize the maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating lost earnings in light of the empirical rule, may be recognized as 65 years, and in order to determine the maximum working age different from that of the empirical rule, there are extenuating circumstances, but the judgment prior to remanding the case was determined as 60 years without examining the aforementioned specific circumstances, reversed the part against the Plaintiff regarding lost earnings in the judgment prior to remand, and dismissed the

Therefore, due to the judgment of remand, active damages and consolation money in the Plaintiff’s claim were already separated and finalized as per the order of the court prior to remand, and the scope of the judgment of this court after remand is limited to the portion concerning the lost income of the remanded case.

Facts of recognition

The reason why the court's explanation on this part of this issue is that "No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-5, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 17, Eul evidence 6-1-2, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 1-2, the result of physical appraisal entrustment to the head of the court of first instance and the director of Seoul National University Hospital, and the result of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings" are changed to "the whole purport of arguments" of the judgment of the court of first instance.