(b) Whether property damage has occurred due to physical damage where a public official who has lost part of his/her labor ability due to a subsequent disability works for the previous workplace in return for previous remuneration (affirmative);

(c) Methods for calculating the reasonable lost profit where labor capability has been partially lost but income has not been reduced after an accident;

(d) Determination criteria for the rate of loss of operating capacity in the event of calculating the profit from operation by the method of recognition and evaluation of the loss rate of operating capacity;

B. If the Plaintiff lost 32% of the ability to work due to an accident, it would be consistent with our rule of experience to recognize that the Plaintiff’s act as a state public official who is engaged in the work as a state public official would have caused an obstacle to the extent corresponding thereto. Therefore, it is erroneous to conclude that the Plaintiff did not incur any property damage due to the above physical damage solely on the ground that the Plaintiff was paid the former remuneration at the same workplace as the previous one until the conclusion of the argument in the lower court, notwithstanding the subsequent disability

C. There is a conflict between the method of calculating the lost profit in the event that a part of the lost profit was lost due to other person's tort and the method of calculating the difference between the income at the time of the tort and the income at the time of the tort and the income at the time of the tort (the theory of loss of income or difference) and the method of assessing the value of the lost labor ability by the income at the time of the accident or the estimated income (the theory of loss of income or appraisal). However, in the event that the difference between the actual income before and after the accident is not revealed in the oral proceedings, it is sufficient to calculate the lost profit by the method of appraisal, which is the basis for income creation (the theory of loss of income or appraisal). However, in the event that the difference between the actual income before and after the accident is not revealed, it is impossible to calculate the lost profit by the method of appraisal as above, and it is reasonable and fair to calculate the lost profit by the method of appraisal.

(d) If the calculation of lost profits is based on the method of recognizing and evaluating the loss rate of operating capacity of the victim, the loss rate shall not be simple medical or physical disability ratio, but be determined based on the victim's age, educational level, nature of the previous occupation, the degree of occupational experience and skills, the degree of physical disability, the possibility of occupational expertise in similar occupation or other occupation, the probability of their probability, and other social and economic conditions, which are determined based on the empirical rule, and the judge's discretion shall be reasonable and objectivity excluded.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the plaintiff's liability for damages by citing the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant's driving of the truck owned by the defendant and causing traffic accidents where the plaintiff suffered from injury, such as pressure from the first step, etc., at the time and place of the judgment. In determining the plaintiff's liability for damages equivalent to the plaintiff's lost income, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's 1st step blurbization of spine, which was unable to be improved after treatment due to pressure from the first step blurbization, lost 32 percent of daily work ability. However, according to its adopted evidence, the court below determined that the plaintiff was not a public official of Grade 8 at the time of the accident of this case and did not have any specific work experience such as wedding, permission and supervision of marriage counseling centers and guidance, supervision of juvenile welfare facilities, children's and children's committee, operation and management, etc., and that the plaintiff did not have any specific work experience or risk of change in his previous work.

2. In light of the records, the fact that the plaintiff, who was a state public official of Grade 8 at the time of the accident, has been receiving the same remuneration as the previous one while serving in the same department for two or more consecutive years after the accident without being subject to leave of absence or dismissal from office after the completion of argument at the court below is recognized by the court below. However, according to the witness Kim Sung-sung, long-term testimony at the court below and the fact inquiry into the head of Dongjak-gu court below, etc., the plaintiff continued to work in the previous workplace after the accident at the time of the accident at issue is not because there is no obstacle to the plaintiff's official's ability to perform his duties, such as early attendance or extension of work after the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the court below, but it is not likely that the plaintiff would be subject to unfavorable measures such as recommendation or dismissal from office, but it is not contrary to the evidence of evidence that there is no possibility that the plaintiff would not be any disadvantage to the plaintiff's duty of care in the above, such as simple evidence.

Ultimately, in this case, the judgment of the court below that the Plaintiff did not incur any property damage due to the above physical damage merely on the ground that the Plaintiff received any remuneration that is not different from the previous one at the same workplace until the conclusion of the argument of the court below, notwithstanding the subsequent disability in the approval of the court below.

3. There is a conflict between the method of calculating the lost profit and the income at the time of the tort and the method of calculating the difference between the income at the time of the tort and the future income after the tort (income loss theory or difference theory) in the case where a part of the lost labor ability was lost due to other person's tort, and the method of assessing the value of the lost labor ability by income at the time of the accident or by estimated income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu538, Mar. 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu331, Mar. 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1580, Mar. 22, 1988; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu27310, Mar. 14, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 201Da873197, Feb. 28, 201).

However, in cases where the calculation of lost profit is based on the method of recognizing and evaluating the loss rate of the victim's ability to operate, the loss rate shall not be a simple physical disability rate, but a victim's age, educational degree, nature of the previous occupation, degree of occupational experience and skill skill, possibility of occupational change, probability of physical function level and similar occupation or other occupation, and its probability, and other social and economic conditions, etc., which are determined according to the empirical rule, should be determined based on the empirical rule and be reasonable and objectivity excluded by the judge. In addition, in this case, the above profit loss rate as a fact-finding court is expressed in the above precedents. Thus, even in this case, the plaintiff's above profit loss rate should be deliberated and determined, and a claim for damages equivalent to the actual profit corresponding thereto should be accepted.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the part of the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the plaintiff's loss of his labor ability as a public official due to the above accident, which is erroneous in the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of lost profit, and incomplete deliberation. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)