1. On the second ground for appeal:

The court below acknowledged the facts leading up to the accident of this case as at the time of the first trial, and ruled that the rate of the plaintiff's negligence in the accident of this case is reasonable to be determined at 10% in total. In light of the records, the court below was just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit. If the circumstances leading up to the accident of this case are the same as the original adjudication, the court below's judgment that deemed the plaintiff's negligence in the accident of this case as 10% in its opinion is acceptable,

2. On the third ground for appeal

In light of Article 90 of the Rules of Employment (Evidence A23) of the defendant company, since the retirement age of class 2 employees is set at 55 years of age, the court below is just until the plaintiff's retirement age reaches 55 years of age, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of precedents.

3. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below asserted that there was a change in the salary system for the defendant company on May 1, 1986 and April 1, 1989 with respect to the employees on several occasions, and there was an increase in salary under salary grade, so the plaintiff's daily income or retirement allowance calculation should be based on the amount of benefits adjusted as above, as alleged in the plaintiff's statement during the above period, although it can be recognized that there was a change in the salary system and the increase in salary amount as alleged in the plaintiff's statement during the above period, there was no data on the special circumstance that the defendant knew, or could have known, such change or increase, etc., at the time of the accident, and therefore the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

In addition, since the loss equivalent to the lost profit calculated based on the salary system to be changed in the future or the wage profit to be increased corresponds to the ordinary loss caused by the tort in question (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6761 delivered on December 26, 1989), the loss of the plaintiff's principal corresponds to the ordinary loss and it cannot be viewed as the loss caused by special circumstances.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no evidence that the defendant knew or could have known the special circumstances, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of compensation for damages. Therefore, the argument that points this out is justified.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding property damage 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 So-young (Presiding Justice)