(b) The case that it is not a business which shall be licensed under the Food Sanitation Act or the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act; and

(c) Where it is impossible to calculate the future lost income of an individual entrepreneur due to estimated statistics;

(b) The case holding that a business of processing and selling by removing animal by-products, such as swine and bamboo, is not a business subject to permission under the Food Sanitation Act or the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act.

C. Where it is deemed that the victim’s income, which is an individual business owner, is larger than that of the victim’s capital profit and is not mainly dependent on the business owner’s individual labor, or where the worker’s business, which is a sample of estimated statistics, is not similar to that of the individual business owner in its contents or labor provision hours, such estimated statistics income cannot be deemed as the alternative employment cost, and thus, it cannot be calculated as the individual business owner’s future loss

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

It is argued that there is a need to obtain permission from an administrative agency in operating a certain business without such permission, and if there is punishment for such business, profits which can be continuously obtained without such permission shall be profits which can be obtained by a criminal act, so this cannot be used as a basis for calculating the actual income.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the deceased non-party 1 was running the business of processing and selling livestock by removing hairs from by-products such as swine and bamboo at the time of the accident with three employees, and such business can not be deemed as having obtained permission under the Food Sanitation Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof. [this business cannot be deemed as having been subject to permission under the Food Sanitation Act, since the above business is not subject to permission under the proviso of Article 7 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, such as the business of cutting, drying, drying, and salting (excluding cases where the purpose of disinfection or the significant change of ingredients is caused) of agricultural, forestry, and fishery products to the extent that they can be identified in their original form without using additives or other raw materials, and it is not subject to permission under the Food Sanitation Act, since there is no possibility that sanitary hazards occur in the process of processing, such as the business of processing livestock products, or the condition of food by-products, it cannot be deemed as being subject to permission under the Food Sanitation Act, which is not subject to permission under the Food Sanitation Act.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the above deceased operated the livestock by-products processing business from 1980 to the time of the accident, and calculated the deceased's income from the above business based on the statistical income of the person engaged in food manufacturing business in 10-14 as a result of the 1992 statistical survey report published by the Ministry of Labor in 1992. The fact-finding and decision of the court below are justified in light of the evidence relations as stated in the judgment below, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit or violation of the rules of evidence. The argument is without merit

3. As to the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the deceased operated the livestock by-products processing business as indicated in its reasoning and divided it into several offices from around December 1990 to the non-party 2 and the other party's building, and then operated the sub-lease business. The above sub-lease business is calculated by adding the monthly average income of the workers engaged in the real estate by-products processing business in the 3-4 year career to the replacement employment cost of the above deceased regarding the real estate by-products business, on the ground that the above sub-lease business is only involved in the conclusion of the contract and collection of rent with the sub-lessee in addition to the initial facilities.

If objective data to recognize actual income of an individual entrepreneur who is a victim do not exist, the amount equivalent to remuneration where the individual entrepreneur employs a person who has the same academic background, career, management ability, etc. as the victim, taking into account the size of the enterprise, management form, number of employees, management performance, etc., that is, the amount of future loss of income can be calculated based on alternative employment expenses. If the individual employer's income mainly depends on the individual's labor, which is less than the amount of capital income in the enterprise, the amount of future income can be calculated based on the estimated statistics of the employee who has the same career as the victim according to the basic statistical report on the wage structure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da2677, Feb. 10, 195; 94Da19846, Sep. 9, 1994; 92Da2751, Dec. 11, 1992; 9Da26479, Sept. 14, 1991).

However, considering the contents of the real estate replacement business of the above deceased as recognized by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the above deceased's capital gains are dependent mainly on the business owner's individual labor, and according to the evidence No. 24-4 of the above deceased's evidence, the court below's average monthly working hours of the workers engaged in the real estate business of 3-4 years who are sampled with the statistics income at the replacement employment cost of the above deceased can be found to have been 285.5 hours, so even if it is assumed that the above statistics income is work until the rest date, it is limited to the above statistics income for the workers engaged in the business at least 9 hours per day, and such statistical income cannot be recognized as the replacement employment cost of the deceased's business operator, such as the deceased, who provides only labor to the extent that it is involved in concluding a contract with the lessee

Therefore, the court below which calculated the actual income from the sub-lease of the above deceased's real estate business based on the statistical income of the workers engaged in the real estate business in 3-4 year, has erred by misapprehending the legal principles on calculation of actual income of the individual business operator, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and there is reason to charge this error.

4. The deceased non-party 1’s funeral expenses damages and the consolation money portion of the deceased and the plaintiffs did not submit any grounds of appeal.

5. Therefore, of the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant as to the lost income of the deceased non-party 1 shall be reversed and remanded to the court below, and the remaining appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)