beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 67,570,206 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from January 11, 2015 to May 3, 2019.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The part added or dried shall consist of 21 to 4 pages 3 in the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
“2) Income and operating period: The Plaintiff claimed that the actual income should be calculated on the basis of the urban daily wage, the daily work day of 22, and the year of age 65 based on the monthly average wage of 3,28,000 won or at least 3,49,000 won or the daily average wage of 1st class full-time workers of 3,49,000 won, on the ground that he/she had various relevant professional qualifications, including the Plaintiff’s master’s degree of family counseling, and is engaged in psychological counseling and family counseling services and family counseling services from September 30, 2014.
In order for the victim to be recognized as having lost income based on the estimated statistical income of workers engaged in the same occupation with the same career as the victim, it is highly probable that the victim actually earned or could have earned such income at the time of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da23024, Jun. 28, 2016). However, each statement of evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 14 (including the branch number) is insufficient to recognize that at the time of the accident in this case, the Plaintiff was either having actually earned or could have actually earned income equivalent to the statistical income of "a man with less than one year of experience in public health, social welfare, and religion" or "a graduate worker with the same type of employment as at the time of the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.
On the other hand.