1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant B and C and the Defendants’ appeal against the Plaintiff are all dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of “judgments on the grounds for appeal 4.5” following the fifth below that is below the 9th sentence of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Part of the Claim that “4. The Plaintiff shall calculate the daily income by including the performance rate based on the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal to determine the grounds for appeal.” As the Plaintiff continued and regularly received performance rates at the end of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident, it should calculate the basic income for the calculation of the daily income including the said income.

Judgment

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff could have obtained a continuous and regular income exceeding KRW 6 million per month, which was recognized by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da77293, Jun. 14, 2012), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted. The gist of the argument that the maximum working age should be extended by the age of 65 is that at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was working as the representative director of G Co., Ltd., and thus, the maximum working age should be deemed to be until February 17, 2037, when the Plaintiff reached the age of 65

Judgment

The maximum working age, which serves as the basis of lost earnings, may be determined by a fact-finding court, based on the fact-finding court’s investigation of various circumstances, such as the number of workers by age, employment rate, labor participation rate, occupational conditions, and retirement age limit, in addition to the social and economic conditions, such as the average remaining life, economic level, employment conditions, etc. of Korean citizens, and the number of workers by age, employment rate, and labor participation rate by occupation, and derive the presumed maximum working age

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da59920 delivered on March 9, 2001, etc.). However, the Plaintiff is the same as the Plaintiff.