The defendant's remaining appeal (in part) is dismissed.

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

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the plaintiff's lost profit from the accident of this case, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was unable to receive remuneration as stated in its reasoning even in cases where the plaintiff retired from the above workplace on May 31, 1983 and was engaged in ordinary daily work, and where the plaintiff continued to work in the above workplace, he would receive compensation as stated in its reasoning, and since December 20, 1982, the amount of wages for the adult male and female workers engaged in ordinary daily work would be obtained from the above workplace until 1 day, 60 days, and the amount of wages for the above regular urban work would be deducted from the plaintiff's remaining income in accordance with the empirical rule that the plaintiff would lose his ability to receive the above amount of wages for the above regular urban work of this case, such as the amount operated by the non-party from December 20, 1982.

However, even if the plaintiff was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to legacy, etc. of the decision, it cannot be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the daily wage for urban use only due to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to his future income only if there are special circumstances that the plaintiff could not engage in the occupation or occupation which has more income than his future daily wage for urban use than his future daily wage and it is inevitable to engage in the daily work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu499, Feb. 24, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Meu5595, Nov. 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Meu448, Feb. 24, 1985) and in recognizing such special circumstances, his future income should be considered.

The court below, without examining whether there are special circumstances that the plaintiff can not engage in a job or occupation with more income than the wage for urban day and can only be engaged in an urban daily work, concluded that the future income is the amount equivalent to the wage for urban day, and on this premise, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of lost income, incomplete deliberation, and violation of the rules of evidence. This is a ground for reversal as stipulated in Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, it is reasonable to point out this point.

2. Meanwhile, although the defendant did not object to the whole part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the part of the consolation money shall be dismissed. Therefore, this part of the appeal shall be dismissed.

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the lower court, and the Defendant’s remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal regarding the dismissed part of the appeal are assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)