beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this part of the liability for damages is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. The loss of lost income equivalent to the monetary total assessment value of the deceased’s lost operating capacity is 167,006,690 won calculated at the present price at the time of the deceased’s death, based on the recognition facts and assessment contents as follows 1) based on the method of deducting intermediary interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows 2).
1) Gender: The deceased shall be 50 years old and 7 months old and 12 years old as at the time of his/her death; the deceased shall be 22 days per month from August 5, 2010 to December 23, 2019; the amount of daily wage of less than 108, 464 won per month; the amount of daily wage of less than 108, 108, 108, 106 won per month from the second half of the year of his/her death (the second half of the year of his/her death); the amount of daily wage of less than 20,130,000 won per month from the second half of the year of his/her death; the amount of daily wage of less than 10,464 won per month from the second half of the year of his/her death (the second half of the year of his/her death); and the amount of daily wage of less than 10,101 won per month from the second half of the year of his/her death (the second half of the year);
(b) Funeral expenses of KRW 3,000,000 (applicable to recognition: the fact that no dispute exists).
C. The Plaintiff asserts that the deceased spent KRW 12,161,072 as medical expenses. In light of each of the records in the celebs and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is insufficient to recognize that the deceased spent the above medical expenses only with the statement of evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.