B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was a violation of the rules of evidence in calculating the lost profit due to the substitute employment cost

(b) If a victim who has a career experience of the same degree and completed the same amount of expected import damage is employed, that is, the amount equivalent to the remuneration to be paid in case of employment of a person who has a career of the same degree and completed the same amount, that is, the entry in the employment status survey report on the wages of a male cook with career of not less than five years, in calculating the alternative employment cost, shall not be the data on the wages in case of substitute employment of a person who has a career of the same degree as the victim in the case of substitute employment of a person who has a ability of a cook of the same degree as that of the victim.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the traffic accident of this case, based on its explanation evidence, by Nonparty 1, a driver belonging to the defendant company, driving a taxi and driving a four distance straight, did not stop without stopping the bus on the right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side right side, and the plaintiff driving the plaintiff's negligence and Orababa, without standing a change in the system of the negative distance signal, is on the yellow yellow signal, making the left-hand turn signal known to the left-hand side, without waiting for the turn-on signal, and reported the degree of the plaintiff's negligence as 70% due to the fact-finding, based on the reasons of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below is reasonable, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, or misunderstanding the legal principles on offsetting negligence, thereby finding the plaintiff's fault ratio too high.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 5

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that from February 15, 1980, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, as evidence of the court below's reasoning, 3 female workers were sleeped in his residence with her wife, and slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick slick sl and slick slick slick sl.

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

The court below, based on its evidence, acknowledged the facts that the plaintiff was engaged mainly in cooking work at a kitchen as seen above, and the monthly average wage of male cook with five or more years of experience in the job classification in 1985, published by the Ministry of Labor, was 349,364 won in the report on the investigation of the job classification by occupation in 1985. The plaintiff's assertion that the above-mentioned point is operated at the time of the accident in this case, and the above-mentioned point is 4,200,000 won per month after deducting the capital profit and all expenses, and the net profit of the above person's service cost is 630,000 won per month after deducting the capital profit and all expenses. In addition to the witness's witness's witness's testimony, the above assertion cannot be accepted. Ultimately, the plaintiff's expected income loss is calculated based on the above fact-finding survey that is not less than 30,000 won per month's work experience in the above 194 months.

The expected income loss of a person who runs a personal business shall be calculated in accordance with the ratio of the profit portion based on the personal contribution of the company's owner (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da52, Apr. 22, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 85Da85, May 28, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 85Da85, May 28, 1985). In the absence of objective data to recognize the total amount of income, necessary expenses, etc. of an enterprise to measure the individual contribution or labor value based on the actual income amount, it would be reasonable to calculate the expected income loss with the same degree as the victim in consideration of the size, management form, number of employees, management performance, etc. of the enterprise.

However, in case where the court below employs the plaintiff's expected import loss of the restaurant business to the same extent as the plaintiff, that is, the amount equivalent to the remuneration to be paid in case where the plaintiff employs a person with career experience and completion as the plaintiff, that is, the job-based wage survey report on the wage of male cook with career of not less than five years, which was adopted in calculating the replacement employment cost, shall not be a evidence of the amount of the wage in case where a substitute employs a person with the same degree of technical ability as the plaintiff, but it is clear that the evidence of the wage in case where a substitute employs a person with the same level of technical ability as the plaintiff can not be a material for the case where a substitute employs a person with the plaintiff's ability to operate a restaurant, such as the completion of the plaintiff's business management and credit in addition to the technical ability, and there is no other material to recognize that the amount of the

Ultimately, the court below erred in the violation of the rules of evidence by concluding that only the amount equivalent to the substitute wage based on the plaintiff's technical ability is the revenue based on the plaintiff's technical ability and business management ability. The court below should have examined the size of the above restaurant operated by the plaintiff at the time of the accident in this case, management form, transaction line, etc., and should have judged the amount corresponding to the degree of contribution based on the plaintiff's technical and management ability. Thus, the court below should have judged the amount corresponding to the amount of contribution based on the plaintiff's technical and management ability.

4. If so, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence and incomplete hearing, and since this constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the part against the plaintiff as to property damage in the original judgment shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court, and it

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)