[손해배상][공1974.5.1.(487),7795]
The case holding that the original judgment calculated by calculating the lost profit on the premise of the promotion of public educational officials is unreasonable.
In light of the purport of Article 33 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 10 of the Public Educational Officials Remuneration Regulations, it is not sufficient to view that the national school teachers continue to work until the age of 65, the retirement age of which is retirement age, with only the testimony of “A”, and thus, the original judgment that calculated the lost profit on the premise of a elevation
Article 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-at-law
Attorney Seo-yang, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 72Na215 delivered on February 22, 1973
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants shall be reversed and remanded to the Daegu High Court.
(1) Of the grounds of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea litigation performers, the first and second grounds of appeal by Defendant Gyeongbuk Transport Co., Ltd. are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff 1's lost income is calculated as follows. In other words, the court below held that the plaintiff 1 had a teacher's qualification certificate at the national school in Daegu City and ○○ National School, and that the plaintiff 1 had been a teacher at the national school in this case at the time of the accident (the records of this case showed that the plaintiff 1 had salary class 19 at the time of the accident, and that the plaintiff 1 had salary class 18 at the time of the accident, which was 18 salary class at the time of the subsequent temporary retirement or retirement, it is hard to find that the plaintiff 1 had a salary class 18 salary class at the time of his subsequent retirement or 18 salary class at the time of his retirement, and it is hard to find that the plaintiff 6th salary class of the court below did not have any special reasons to prove that the plaintiff 1 continued to have the same profits as the plaintiff 1's net income at the time of his retirement or 66th salary class.
Therefore, even though it is difficult for the court below to recognize that the plaintiff 1 would naturally raise the benefits as stated in its reasoning, the court below calculated the lost benefits on the premise of the remaining facts which were easily recognized as such, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the misunderstanding of legal principles as to calculation of lost benefits, or the misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, or the misapprehension of legal principles as to calculation of lost benefits. Therefore, the court below's argument on this issue is just. Accordingly, without making any decision on other points in the argument of appeal, the part against the defendants among the judgment below shall be reversed, and such part shall be remanded
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)