B. The fact that the victim gains the same income in the same workplace as before after the accident and the calculation of the lost profit by the rate of loss of operating capacity.

B. In calculating the lost profit of the victim injured by tort, the loss rate is not just a medical physical disability rate, but a profit loss rate determined according to the empirical rule by considering the victim's age, educational degree, nature of the previous occupation, career and degree of skill training, the possibility of occupational experience in the physical function level and similar occupation or other occupation, and its probability, and other social and economic conditions, etc. Therefore, if it is reasonable to recognize the loss rate of operational ability of the victim by court, even if the victim gains income from the previous workplace in the same workplace as before and after the symptoms of the accident are fixed, it cannot be readily concluded that the victim did not have any property damage regardless of the victim's physical disability.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. In the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited by the court below, it is acceptable to reject the defendant's assertion of offsetting negligence on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the convergence of dubs such as the dubs of metal plates located on the part of the plaintiff's injury, which is the victim of this case, is due to the plaintiff's negligence, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts or offsetting of negligence

2. In the event that part of the daily disability is lost due to a tort, the method of calculating the lost profit can be deemed as the loss of income that the victim would have obtained if there had been no tort. The difference between the income at the time of the tort and the future income can be calculated by using the method of assessing the value of the lost labor disability by income or estimated income at the time of the accident. Thus, it is sufficient to determine that the reasonable and objective expected profit can be calculated based on the specific circumstances present at the case in question, and only one party can be deemed as just method. In the event that the method of recognizing and assessing the lost labor disability rate of the victim, one of the approaches to calculating the lost labor disability rate of the victim, is determined by the method of recognizing and assessing the lost labor disability rate of the victim, not by the rate of medical disability but by the rate of physical disability, the degree of education experience at the time of the victim, the previous occupational ability and skills of the victim, and the degree of physical disability at the time of the victim and the previous occupational disability at the time of the fact-finding court’s determination of physical disability and physical disability.

The judgment of the court below is justified in the determination of the court below, based on the evidence of the court below, that the plaintiff, the injured party, worked as the Deputy Director of the Accounting Division of the Non-party Sejong Company at the time of the accident in this case, and that the plaintiff's ability to work as an indoor worker remains reduced by 15.4% due to the accident in this case, and that the amount of damages of future profit should be the amount equivalent to the above rate of reduction of labor ability from the amount of income at the time of the accident in this case. (In light of the results of inquiry about the representative director of the Non-Party Sejong Company, the first instance court, which was employed by the original court, conducted circular duty, since the above company conducted circular duty, the above company's circular duty was conducted, considering the physical condition when the plaintiff is transferred to the field work, there is an obstacle to the normal work, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of lost income, and it is not reasonable in this case.

3. The court below's adoption of the result of the physical appraisal commission as to the loss of labor ability by the plaintiff cannot be viewed as an error of documentary evidence as pointed out in the arguments. The arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)