beta
Text
1. Of the part against the Plaintiffs regarding the lost income in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following order of additional payment is issued.
Reasons
1. The judgment of remanding the scope of the judgment in this Court reversed only the part against the plaintiffs regarding the lost income (negative loss) among the claims in this case before remanding. Since the remaining part of the plaintiffs' claims in this case except lost income has already been determined, it was excluded from the scope of the judgment in this Court.
2. The court's explanation on this part of the occurrence of liability for damages is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
3. In addition to those stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages (actual income), each item of the annexed Schedule of Calculation of Damages shall be the same as the corresponding item of the annexed Table of Calculation of Damages, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1
The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.
In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.
In principle, the actual income of a wage income earner is limited to pure wage and salary income inasmuch as the daily income of a wage income earner is lost or reduced due to a tort. Therefore, if an employer regularly, continuously, and uniformly pays money and valuables to work as the object of labor, it shall not be asked whether the name thereof or the ground for payment is specified in the wage regulations, but it shall be included in the calculation of actual income. However, it shall be excluded from the wage income, which serves as the basis for calculating the actual income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da58491, Apr. 24, 1998).