(b) Method of calculating the lost profit, in case where the loss rate of a single-age pension during the total period does not exceed 240, but the victim is unable to obtain the net profit, in deducting the interim interest pursuant to the calculation method in the number of days off, is included.

(c) Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings;

B. When applying the numerical value obtained by deducting the present value from the present value of a short-term pension operated for the total period during which the victim is unable to obtain the net profit, even if the present value exceeds 240 months, when the numerical value of the present value exceeds 414 months in calculating the present value, the present value may be calculated by applying the deducted numerical value equivalent to the present value of a short-term pension operated for the total period during which the victim is unable to obtain the net profit, if the deducted numerical value does not exceed 240 if the present value does not exceed 240, the present value may be calculated by applying the corresponding numerical value.

C. In calculating the amount of damages for nonperformance of monetary obligations, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that an obligor may not be excluded from the application of the above Paragraph(1) until the judgment of the court of fact that the obligor may contest the existence or absence of performance, etc. is rendered. Thus, when it is reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or absence of performance obligation until the judgment of the court of fact-finding is rendered, the court may appropriately determine the scope to which the above Paragraph(1) does not apply during the period from the day following the day when the complaint, etc. was served on the obligor until the judgment of

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party, who is the truck driver owned by the defendant, driving a truck, found the ozone part of the plaintiff's driving which coming from the opposite direction at the point where the yellow central line is installed at the time of the original adjudication, and even if it stops, the court below found the error of the plaintiff's driving and the plaintiff's driving at the center line without passing it first, and found the plaintiff's fault that the plaintiff did not cause damage to the truck that was driven by the crime because the driver was not able to drive, drive, drive, and drive, and drive, without the driver's license, and did not cause damage to each of the plaintiff's fault ratio as 10%. In light of the records, the court below's fact finding is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit,

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. In a case where the labor force is lost due to a tort and the profit is lost therefrom, in principle, the amount of compensation for the lost labor force shall be calculated on the basis of the profit at the time of the loss of the labor force, but if there are objective data clearly predicted to increase the profit in the future, the amount of profit to be increased in the future should be considered (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1732 delivered on January 13, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 82Meu278 delivered on July 13, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1583 delivered on November 10, 1987).

At the time of the accident in this case, the court below recognized that the plaintiff was attending the third year of the Yansan Industrial High School and completed the registration of the 2nd grade national technical qualification examination, and lost the profit as an electrical technician in calculating the lost profit from the completion of the future military service against the plaintiff, and thus, did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

3. The view of the party members that the computation of the present price for lost interests in the future by deducting intermediate interest from the computation of the present price for lost interests in the future by deducting the intermediate interest in accordance with the Hodman Accounting Act is not unlawful (Supreme Court Decision 81Da588 Decided September 22, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 85Meu819 Decided October 22, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2375 Decided March 25, 1986): Provided, That even if the intermediate interest is deducted by the Hodman Accounting Act, if the intermediate interest deduction period exceeds 240 months, it shall be calculated by deducting the present rate of 240 from the total amount of net income during the current period of 40 months, regardless of whether the present rate of short-term pension on the numerical list is available; however, if the present rate is calculated by applying the present rate of 25 months, it shall be calculated by deducting the present rate of net income during the current period of 40 months from the total amount of loss.

The court below is just in calculating the plaintiff's lost profit on the premise of the above opinion and there is no error of law as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

4. In calculating the amount of damages for nonperformance of a monetary obligation, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings excludes the application of special cases to Paragraph (1) as to statutory interest rate which serves as the basis for such nonperformance, and provides that the obligor may not be excluded from the application of Paragraph (1) until the judgment of fact-finding court declaring the existence of the obligation is rendered. Thus, if the obligor has a dispute over the existence of the obligation until the judgment of fact-finding court is rendered, the court may appropriately determine the scope of application of Paragraph (1) during the period from the day following the day when the complaint, etc. was served on the obligor until the judgment of fact-finding court is rendered, and the application of Paragraph (1) cannot be excluded after the judgment was rendered (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1876, May 26, 1987; 86Meu1418, Jun. 23, 1987).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from the date following the date of the illegal act of this case to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment under the provisions of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Establishment and Scope of the Obligation of this case to the defendant at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance. There is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)