The judgment below

The part against the Defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3

A. In a case where a company where the victim was working was closed after the accident, barring special circumstances, such as the victim’s discontinuance of business due to the injury caused by the accident, the amount of future income with considerable probability to the extent that it does not lose rationality and objectivity after examining and examining the victim’s age, education level, the victim’s previous occupation and career, degree of occupational experience, degree of skill skill, and possibility of occupational change in similar occupation or other occupation, and probability and probability of occupational change in similar occupation and other occupation, in light of other social and economic conditions and experience.

(1) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The principle of free evaluation of evidence declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act does not need to be bound by the formal rules of evidence, and does not allow a judge’s arbitrary judgment.” Thus, the fact finding shall be in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of justice and equity, and even if the fact finding falls under the discretion of the fact-finding court, it shall not exceed the limit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da25755, Sept. 29, 2015; 2012Da2228, Apr. 13, 2012).”

The lower court, on December 31, 2013, retired from the said G on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the payment of lost income, where the Plaintiff had a certificate of qualification as a special-purpose technician at the time of the instant accident, while engaging in the business related to the contact in G at the time of the instant accident, obtained income of KRW 4,200,000 per month.