1. Each appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to adding the following 2. of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. As to the addition, the plaintiffs asserted that the average value should be calculated based on the income reported to the tax office in calculating the actual income of the deceased, and the defendant asserted that the actual income should be calculated based on the business income of the above G, based on the personal contribution ratio. Thus, in calculating the actual income of the deceased who is a personal business entity, in principle, the part of the actual contribution or labor value of the business entity should be extracted on the basis of the company's actual contribution ratio. In reality, in many cases where the report on the amount of income is not faithfully made, and in the case of a recycling business entity, it is difficult to regard the above report income as the actual income of G immediately, and inasmuch as there is no evidence to determine the actual income, it is difficult to calculate the amount of the deceased's actual income in the same manner as the plaintiffs or the defendant asserted.

Therefore, as in the case of this case, if the income of the deceased depends mainly on the deceased's individual labor rather than the capital income, it is inevitable to calculate the lost income based on the estimated statistical income for workers whose contents, experience, and hours of provision of labor are similar to the deceased's individual labor. Therefore, all of the plaintiffs and the defendant's arguments cannot be accepted.

In addition, the defendant asserts that there is no ground to extend the maximum working age of the deceased as 65 years, but the deceased left 57 years and 8 months at the time of the accident, and the deceased was a founder of G and a manager of G on 204.