The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the defendant.

The summary of the reasoning is that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence in the judgment below due to misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or failure to exhaust all the deliberation, but it is clear that such a ground does not fall under the grounds of appeal provided for in each subparagraph of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning

2. On the grounds for a request for permission:

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: while the plaintiff was engaged in non-party 1's driving water at the time of Non-party 1's death, the plaintiff suffered from injury, such as the upper half of the upper half of 1983, while driving water of the non-party 1's driver's net, but retired from office by being unable to engage in the above occupational category any more after the movement restriction of the upper half of 19%, and even when engaged in general urban work, the plaintiff lost 19% of the working ability; the current city's daily wages as of June 1983 at the time of the above accident are 5,800 won per day; the above city's daily wages as of Sep. 20, 1985 were 7,200 won as of Sep. 4, 1985; the plaintiff did not suffer from the above accident for 328 months from the day of the accident to the day of age 55,000,0000 won,000 won.

However, even if the plaintiff was unable to engage in the previous original occupation due to the after-sales legacy, its future income cannot be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the daily wage, only if there are special circumstances that make it difficult for the plaintiff to engage in the occupation or occupation which has larger income than the urban daily wage and it is predicted that it cannot be engaged in the daily work, the plaintiff's future income can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the daily wage. Thus, even if the records are examined, it cannot be engaged in the driving or other vehicle driving related business by the second-class ordinary driver's license in addition to the driving business by the first-class large driver's license in which the plaintiff was engaged at the time of the accident, and it is not clear that the plaintiff could not be engaged in the daily work, even though there is no evidence to recognize it as being outside the scope of the daily work, the court below did not have the right to ask for the parties or urge them to verify it, and therefore there is a violation of the rules of evidence.

(2) As to consolation money, there is no indication in the grounds of appeal, and the appeal on this part is without merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant concerning property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the court below, and the remaining appeal by the defendant is without merit, and it shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal with respect to the dismissal of the appeal shall be assessed against the defendant and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent

Justices Yoon Yoon-tae (Presiding Justice)