(2) Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff Round except the above part is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

According to the judgment of the court below on June 17, 197: around 55, 195, the court below found that the above accident caused an injury to the plaintiff 1, who was driven by the defendant 1, who was an employee of the defendant 1, who was trying to turn to the left at the 3-distance Seoul-U.S. Uniform Silsan-ri, 350 U.S., in front of the wall station located in the wall station in Seoul-U.S., and the opposite direction of the plaintiff 1, who was driven by the defendant 1, was in conflict with the above Oro-U, U.S. which was driving by the defendant 3, U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., and U.S., U.S., 4 years of age at the time of the accident, violated the prohibition of left-hand turn in the operation of the above 3-U.S., and did not observe the above 3-U.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

According to the judgment of the court below, in calculating the amount of damages for loss of lost profit among the property damages of Plaintiff Had Co., Ltd., the above Had Co., Ltd. was engaged in agricultural daily work at the time of the accident of this case, and thus, based on the average of 2,340 won per day, which is the daily wage for rural day, which can be received by the adults of Korea at the time of the accident of this case, at the time of the accident of this case, pursuant to the Franchi Calculation Act, the lost profit up to 5 years of age due to the loss of labor capacity (15 per cent loss) shall be calculated according to the Franchi Calculation Act. As to the Plaintiff Had Co., Ltd’s assertion based on the amount of 3,568 won, which is the daily wage for rural day work at the time of the closure of argument of the court below of this case at the time of the accident of this case, this part of the claim shall be excluded as of the time of the accident of this case.

However, barring any special circumstance, future gains to be acquired by the victim due to a tort should be based on the profits as at the time of the closing of the fact-finding proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da1518, Oct. 10, 1972). Even if the Plaintiff’s scrap metal was engaged in daily work for agricultural communities at the time of the instant accident, it is obvious in the record that the increase in the daily work wages for agricultural communities was made from the time of the accident to the time of the closing of the instant argument (Records 341, the record) and it would have been made even in the above Plaintiff. Thus, within the Plaintiff’s claims, the lower court should have uniformly assessed the damages of the Plaintiff’s daily work wages for agricultural communities at the time of the instant accident from the date of the instant accident to the time of the closing of the argument in the lower court, and thus, should have determined the damages of the Plaintiff’s daily work wages at the time of the instant accident, which were calculated based on the legal doctrine on the damages of the Plaintiff’s daily work wages at the time of this case.

(3) In addition, the part against which the plaintiffs lost consolation money is not mentioned in the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, so the appeal on this part shall not be dismissed in entirety.

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff Cho Sung-hun and the appeal by the court below against the consolation money against the plaintiff Cho Jong-hun among the judgment below is dismissed with respect to the amount of KRW 300,000 per annum from June 18, 197 to the full payment rate of KRW 50 percent per annum, and the appeal by the court below as to the damages for delay of legal affairs from June 18, 197. The costs of appeal as to this dismissed portion are assessed against the plaintiffs. The part of the judgment of the court below against the damages for property except the above dismissed part against the plaintiff Cho Jong-hun shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the judgment below

Justices Presiding Justice (Presiding Justice)

Justices Kang Jeong-hee et al., on the ground that they are traveling overseas