1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the following contents are added at the third 15 minutes of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Defendant asserts that “A” shall calculate the daily income on the basis of statistical income of a caregiver, unless there are special circumstances to apply the daily average urban wage for construction business to the general public. However, in a case where a worker is more general labor wage than the income he/she actually earned at his/her workplace, it is highly probable that a worker would engage in general labor. Thus, barring special circumstances, if the ordinary labor wage at the time of the closing of argument is more than the maximum amount of income actually earned at the time of the closing of argument, barring any special circumstance, the worker shall select the ordinary labor wage at the time of the closing of argument and calculate the daily income on the basis thereof, and the special circumstance shall be proved by the alleged worker (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da3134, Feb. 28, 1995). Thus, there is no evidence to prove otherwise that there is any special circumstance to calculate the daily income

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

In addition, according to various statistical data, the defendant asserts that the income of the elderly aged 60 years or older is much lower than the urban daily wage, so after the age of 60, the daily income should not be calculated on the basis of the urban daily wage.

However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that there exists a special circumstance to calculate the lost income in an amount other than urban daily wage, solely on the ground that the ordinary labor wage exceeds the actual income earned by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident. There is no evidence to acknowledge the allegation otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's status.