beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 39,653,164 and KRW 39,227,356 among them.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the ruling of the court of first instance is to be explained concerning this case are as follows: (1) On the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the third to the following second to the second to the second to the second.
(2) As described in paragraph (2) above the first to the first to the first half of the decision of the court of first instance, the part described below 2-B.
(3) In addition to the replacement of an urban daily wage after the date of closing argument in the first instance court, the calculation table of damages in the attached Form of the judgment in the first instance court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment in the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts in height:
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the daily income should be calculated on the basis of statistical income of “persons engaged in cooking and food service workers with a career of at least 10 years,” since around 1987, when he/she worked as a cook in a restaurant, and directly operated a Chinese restaurant from around 1987.
The statistical income in the report on fact-finding surveys by employment type is basically a standard for estimating the income of a person corresponding to workers. In estimating the income of a person who is an employee, the average monthly income of the person engaged in the same occupation as that in the report cannot be immediately recognized as the income of the person who is an employee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu24502, Nov. 13, 1990; 92Da10135, Jul. 24, 1992); 5-1, 7, 15-1, 2-1, 2-1, and 15-2-1, and part of the fact-finding results of the fact-finding survey on the head of the Dong-si branch of the Korea Food Association, which is an incorporated court of the trial, the plaintiff was issued a cooking license on Jun. 2, 1981; and the plaintiff was recognized as operating the restaurant in China from Oct. 20, 1987 to around that time.