The nature of the criminal agreement paid without expressly stating that it is consolation money;

(b)It is reasonable to deem that the amount paid by the perpetrator to the agreement in the criminal trial has been paid as part of the compensation for property damage unless it is expressly stated that the amount is paid as consolation money at the time of payment.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to comparative negligence

According to the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below which recognized that the victim of this case did not wear the safety belt, and that the damage was caused by the extension of the damage is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. As to the following leave expenses, monthly wintering expenses, and heavy food expenses:

After the accident in this case, the lower court is deemed to have increased the following leave expenses, monthly and heavy food expenses, but it did not include the increased portion in calculating the actual income amount on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants knew or could have known it at the time of the accident, since all of them were losses due to special circumstances.

However, in principle, the lost profit of a wage income earner who has lost his/her ability to work due to a tort shall be calculated on the basis of the actual profit at the time of the loss of his/her ability to work. However, if there are objective data which can clearly be predicted to increase his/her future wage income, the actual profit to be increased shall also be considered. As such, the amount of damages equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the lost profit to be increased in the future should be determined on the basis of the social concept, and the amount of compensation should not vary depending on whether the perpetrator knew or could have known of the situation that the lost profit would have been increased in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu6761, Dec. 26, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu3130, Jun. 12, 199; 89Meu14639, Jul. 24, 199).

Furthermore, according to the records, the benefits of each of the above items are increased before the closing of argument in the court below, and as long as the court below accepted each of the above items as part of the profit-making profit in calculating the lost profit, it shall be deemed to have affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of compensation for damages and thereby, it shall be deemed that the increased portion was a damage due to the special circumstance. Therefore, the argument

3. As to other bonuses

The court below's decision that other bonuses are damages due to special circumstances is misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of compensation for damages as seen above. However, according to the reasoning of the first instance court's decision cited by the court below, other bonuses asserted as 191 were paid for 191 years under the name of Boli-day encouragement, labor force strengthening encouragement, labor performance encouragement, labor performance encouragement, 192 in the case of 192, and labor performance encouragement, and it is difficult to regard them as compensation for work, and even if the price for household work is paid, it shall be excluded from the actual income on the ground that the time of payment is denied and the amount is not determined to have been imported in the future. The above measures of the court below are just and there is no reason to criticize the appeal.

4. As to the deduction for profit and loss

The record reveals that the non-party 1,00,000 won paid by the non-party 2,00,000 to the plaintiff on the part of the insurance money was paid as part of the insurance money, and there was no clear statement that the defendant 3 paid the 4,000,000 won as agreed money in the criminal trial process as compensation at the time of payment of the 4,00,000 won. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that each of the above amounts was paid as part of compensation for property damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Da3133, May 24, 198; 91Da18712, Aug. 13, 191).

Therefore, the court below's decision to the above purport is just, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs regarding passive damages is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)