The judgment below

Amongst them, the part against the plaintiffs regarding lost income damages is reversed, and this part of this case is applied.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the computation of lost earnings of the Plaintiffs, the lower court calculated the monthly income of the Deceased at KRW 13,077,556, based on its stated reasoning, and calculated the lost income amount of KRW 11,932,989, which was calculated by deducting the income tax of KRW 1,144,567, based on the premise that the deceased’s monthly income was the lost income of the deceased.

However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s decision that calculated the lost income amount on the premise that the amount of income tax deducted from the deceased’s income amount is the lost income.

The amount of profit which a person loses all or part of the operating capacity due to a tort against life or body is the total appraised value of the operating capacity that the victim has lost, and the amount of such profit shall be deemed the amount which has not deducted the amount of taxes, such as income tax, etc. for such income.

(1) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as seen earlier, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as seen earlier, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the Plaintiffs’ limitation of liability, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, deemed the deceased’s fault ratio as 40% and limited the Defendant’s liability ratio to 60%.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the limitation of liability, thereby affecting the judgment.

3. As to the grounds of appeal on the maximum working age of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the lower court acknowledged the deceased’s maximum working age until he/she reaches the age of 65.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just.