1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Plaintiff’s lost income damages is modified as follows.

The defendants are the defendants.

In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the first instance trial to seek damages equivalent to 1,384,296,875 won against the Defendants (i.e., positive damages of KRW 1,204,479,90 for damages of KRW 1,200,000 for consolation money of KRW 113,000 for deductible money - KRW 113,000 for deductible money).

The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s above claim amounting to KRW 598,32,874 (i.e., KRW 94,830,095, active damages amounting to KRW 546,492,779, KRW 70,000, KRW 113,000,000).

The Plaintiff and the Defendants appealed respectively, and the Plaintiff revised the purport of the claim by making the claim amount to KRW 1,212,914,665 (=170,195,759, positive damages of KRW 952,718,906, KRW 90,000,00) in the trial before remanding.

Before remanding the Plaintiff’s appeal, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal and, at the same time, accepted part of the Defendants’ appeal, and recognized the Plaintiff’s claim for damages amounting to KRW 461,406,656 (i.e., positive damages amounting to KRW 94,830,095,000, KRW 70,000, KRW 113,000,000, KRW 561 (affirmative damages amounting to KRW 409,576,561) (affirmative damages amounting to KRW 113,00,000). Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering the Plaintiff to pay more than

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the part of the judgment before remanding the above case is unfair. The Defendants asserted that the ratio of negligence set-off, the amount of lost income, and the amount of nursing expenses are unreasonable. The Defendants asserted that the portion of the amount of comparative negligence set-off, the amount of lost income, and the amount of nursing expenses was

The Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment prior to remanding the Plaintiff’s loss as to lost earnings on the premise of 60 years of age, on the ground that the maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating lost earnings in light of the empirical rule, can be recognized as 65 years of age, and dismissed both the Plaintiff’s remaining final appeal, the Defendants’ final appeal,

Therefore, due to the judgment of remand, active damages and consolation money in the plaintiff's claim are the same as the judgment of the court prior to remand.