[손해배상(자)][공1990.12.1.(885),2273]
The method of calculating the profit of negligence in case the realization rate of a single pension exceeds 240 when deducting an intermediary interest pursuant to the monthly calculation method.
In a case where interim interest is deducted pursuant to the Fmanmanial Calculation Act, if the current value of a short-term pension is calculated by applying the current rate of the short-term pension after 414 when the current rate of the short-term pension exceeds 240, the victim would receive excessive compensation. Therefore, it is reasonable to apply 240 to all the short-term pension on the numerical table regardless of the long-term rate of the current value of the short-term pension.
Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park In-bok and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)
Chuncheon et al. and one other
Attorney Lee J-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Busan High Court Decision 89Na11220 delivered on June 14, 1990
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding property damage shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be reversed.
The case shall be remanded to Busan High Court.
The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
With respect to No. 1:
In this case, the court below accepted the measures taken into account the ratio of 30 percent in recognizing the victim's loss loss's negligence and determining the scope of the defendant's liability for damages, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of comparative negligence or lack of reason. Therefore, the argument is groundless.
With respect to the fourth point:
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the lost profit of the above loan room, the court below calculated the intermediate interest by deducting the interim interest from the monthly net income amount during the 448-month period by the Hofman Accounting Act, and applying the simple pension realization rate 252.430708 on the monthly unit numerical value table as it is.
However, in a case where an intermediary interest is deducted pursuant to the Fmanmanial Calculation Act, if the present rate of a simple pension exceeds 240 and the present rate is calculated by applying the current rate of a simple pension after 414 months, it would result in excessive compensation for the victim. Therefore, in calculating the present rate of a simple pension with the present rate exceeding 240, it is reasonable to apply 240 to the calculation by applying the current rate of a simple pension on the numerical list, regardless of whether the present rate of a simple pension on the numerical list is high (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu819, Oct. 22, 1985).
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of damages, thereby affecting the judgment.
Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant as to property damage is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for appeal, and there is no objection as to the remainder (defensive materials), but there is no objection as to the ground of appeal, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the defendant's
Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)