beta
(영문) 대법원 1977. 7. 26. 선고 77다481 판결

[위자료등][공1977.9.15.(568),10243]

Main Issues

Standard for calculating lost profits and average wages under Article 19 of the Labor Standards Act;

Summary of Judgment

In principle, the basis for calculating the amount of lost damage suffered by an employee due to another person's illegal act is the actual income of the victim at the time of the accident and the average wage under Article 19 of the Labor Standards Act cannot be the basis.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 19(2) of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Attorneys Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant-Appellee

Korean Construction Business Corporation

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na2114 delivered on March 10, 1977

Text

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. As to the Plaintiff 1’s appeal

The calculation of damages (actual damages) caused by a worker's physical disability to be engaged in the business due to the other person's illegal act and caused the loss to be lost. In principle, the victim's income at the time of the illegal act will be the basis for calculating the amount of damages.

As to this point, the lower court acknowledged that Plaintiff 1’s revenues at the time of the instant accident were 1,692 won and 60 won a day on an average of 1,692 won and 1,60 won a day on which the instant accident occurred. According to the record, the daily wage on the day is 2,000 won or 1,692 won a day on which the daily average of 1,60 won and 1,60 won a day on which the materials for this fact-finding were included in the calculation of 2,00 won or holidays, and

In theory, Article 19 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the means of ordinary wage and the average wage. However, this provision is not a standard for calculating lost damage, so the theory can not be adopted.

2. The plaintiff 2 did not include the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief submitted by the attorney does not contain any indication in the grounds of appeal as to the plaintiff.

3. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed under Articles 39, 384, and 399 of the Civil Procedure Act and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)