1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The basic facts;

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the occurrence of liability for damages and the limitation thereof is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it shall be as stated in each corresponding item of the attached Table of calculation of damages.

In principle, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but the period of less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded.

The current price calculation at the time of the accident shall be based on the calculation of the amount of damages, which deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 of the month as a simple interest.

A. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s wage at the time of the instant accident exceeds the overall purport of oral argument in the inquiry reply to the fact-finding inquiry of the company’s employees, the 3,303,333 court of the first instance as to the Daeup Engineering Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s wage at the time of the instant accident, other than performance bonuses, was paid on a regular basis; the bonus paid at the time of the instant accident, other than performance bonuses, was paid on a regular basis; the bonus paid at the time of the Plaintiff’s regular rate of 1.7 million won in 2010, 1.4 million won in 201, 2011, and 5.3 million won in 2012.

However, considering the fact that bonuses are not linked to basic pay and are not paid a certain amount, but are paid differently depending on the corporate circumstances, it is reasonable to calculate the Plaintiff’s expected income based on the monthly average of KRW 307,000 for the final monthly salary of KRW 307,00 and KRW 233,333 for the three-year bonus ( KRW 5.3 million for KRW 1.7 million) ± (3 x 1/12) ± the sum of KRW 3,303,333 for the three-year bonus.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should calculate the plaintiff's income based on urban daily wage after the plaintiff retired from the company of this case. However, the victim's actual income should be calculated based on the income that the victim had obtained at the time of the accident in principle. The plaintiff's income at the time of the accident is based on the plaintiff's income.