(b) The case holding that it is reasonable to evaluate the actual earnings of victims who have concurrently performed the work, such as diving guidance, based on the earnings of salespersons, shop members, and related employees in the report on the survey on the actual status of wages by occupation, as a distributor of diving equipment;

B. The case holding that it is more reasonable and objectivity to evaluate the loss of future revenue based on the income of salespersons, shop members, and relevant employees similar to the victim's occupation rather than evaluating the loss of future revenue based on the income of teachers in the report on the investigation of actual wages by occupation, in light of the specific contents of the work as a diving equipment dealer from time to time in the event that the victim actually engaged in such work concurrently takes place as diving guidance, etc.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff had been engaged in the sale of diving equipment from time to time with the trade name "○○○○○○○○," which had been engaged in the sale of diving equipment for several years at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff engaged in the sale of diving equipment at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a net income of 1,666,84 won per month at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the above amount, and the job category of the plaintiff at the same time is similar to that of 13 teachers (sports instructors) in the occupational status survey report issued by the Ministry of Labor. Thus, it is clear that the amount of loss of future revenue suffered by the plaintiff should be assessed.

2. In light of the records of this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the real income should be the basis of the calculation of damages of this case as alleged above, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the ground of appeal. In particular, the tax data submitted by the plaintiff to prove the amount of income generated from the operation of diving equipment sales business are based on a relatively short-term business performance prior to the accident of this case and six months, and it is difficult to prove that the plaintiff can continuously obtain the above operating income after the accident of this case. In light of the characteristics of the above diving equipment, it is not enough to prove that the plaintiff can continuously obtain the above operating income after the accident of this case. The calculation of the loss amount of the victim's future income due to tort damages is based on the statistics of this case's company's company's company's total income, necessary expenses, facilities, etc. It is reasonable to determine the amount of income generated from the victim's company's contribution to the business's labor or the amount of the employee's ability to use of the company's wage.

3. Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below assessed the plaintiff's future revenue based on the average wage of 13 teachers in occupational categories in the above investigation report, but it seems that it is more reasonable and objectivity to evaluate the amount of loss of future revenue based on the plaintiff's occupation number 45 salespersons, shop workers, and related employees' income similar to the plaintiff's occupation rather than the evaluation based on the income of school teachers in the above investigation report, in light of the specific contents of the work as legally determined by the court below.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in calculating the future loss amount on the basis of the revenue of the faculty members similar to the importation of a diving movement instructor. However, according to the above investigation report employed by the court below, the average wage of the above salesperson, etc. can be found to fall short of the wage level of the faculty. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below calculated the estimated amount of the plaintiff's future loss loss as the average wage of the faculty members in the above investigation report by calculating the estimated amount of the plaintiff's future loss loss as the average wage of the staff in the above investigation report would rather be more favorable to the plaintiff

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)