All appeals are dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on income amount and disability period by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on income amount, the court acknowledged the amount of damages exceeding the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

If the plaintiff does not order the compensation in excess of the claim amount, it does not violate the principle of party disposition.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da17710 Decided October 11, 1994). The Plaintiff asserted that the maximum working age of KRW 2,00,000 per month based on the annual salary of KRW 24,00,000 as stipulated in the employment contract entered into with the construction company of the new 1st century, may be earned until the last day of the maximum working age, on the premise that the amount of income and disability period for calculating the actual income and the period of disability have occurred in the claim for a change in the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim made on September 4, 2014. The lower court acknowledged the period from March 5, 2009, which is the contract term stipulated in the said employment contract, to March 4, 2010, as income amount; and recognized the daily wage of the urban average worker (the period from September 1, 2015 to the last day of the contract term) as income amount of KRW 2,00,000 for the period after the maximum working age.

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the disposal authority doctrine, etc.

The Supreme Court Decision cited in the ground of appeal by the Defendant differs from this case, and it is inappropriate to invoke this case.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the rate of loss of labor ability, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, applies items V-D-1-b to the occupational coefficient 5 on the Merbrid disability assessment table, and considers the degree of contribution to the accident 50%.