beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The grounds for this part of the claim for damages are as follows: (a) the “11:00” as stated in Section 2, Section 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “12:10”; and (b) the “E” as stated in Section 11 shall be deemed as “I” and the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. In addition to a separate statement below the scope of the liability for damages, each of the corresponding items of the Schedule of Calculation of Compensation for Damages shall be the same as that of the annexed Table of Calculation of Compensation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than one month and less than one
The calculation of the current value of the amount of damages shall be based on the discount method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.
In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments have not been presented separately.
Matters to be recognized as the actual income: The details in the column of "basic matters" in the attached Form for calculation of damages.
The actual income: Ordinary employee's urban daily wage (the plaintiff has a variety of architectural technologies, at least 2,50,000 won per month while working as a constructor at the time of the accident in this case, and even around 2016, the plaintiff has gained income of 3,300,000 won, not the urban daily wage of ordinary workers, and the above actual income should be reflected as to the plaintiff. However, the victim's actual income at the time of the tort should be determined based on objective and reasonable data by determining the amount of loss of the victim's actual income at the time of the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da62114, Mar. 24, 200), and the statement or image of evidence No. 4, 13, 17, and 200 won per month, and there was no other objective evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's actual income exceeding the actual number of days of operation in the accident in this case's ordinary urban wage at the time of the accident in this case.)