[2] The method of calculating the lost profit where the victim is engaged in two or more imported businesses at the time of tort

[3] Whether the amount of lost profit of the victim is calculated on the basis of only the amount of income reported to the tax authority (negative with qualification)

[2] If the victim of a tort concurrently engages in business falling under two or more sources at the time of the accident, in light of the nature of each business, the type of work, etc., he/she shall be compatible with each other independently, and only if the victim actually engages in business, the amount of loss of revenue of each type of business shall be assessed individually in calculating the lost profit of the victim.

[3] The amount of the lost profit of a victim who had a certain amount of income at the time of tort shall be calculated based on objective and reasonable data by determining the amount of income actually earned by the victim at the time of the accident. In this case, if the victim has a reported income to the tax authority, the reported amount of income shall be deemed the amount of income at the time of the accident. However, if objective and reasonable data exists to determine that the reported amount of income is considerably low or that there was a other income than the reported income, only the reported amount of income shall not be deemed the amount of income at the time of the

(1) If there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, if the facts were to be recognized by one of them, it is lawful unless it violates the rules of experience and logic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da39368, Oct. 27, 1992; 94Da34562, Aug. 25, 1995).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below adopted the result of the physical reexamination entrustment to the director of the hospital affiliated with the Hanyang University as a result of the physical reexamination in the court of first instance, which expresses different opinions about the plaintiff 1's disability caused by the accident of this case, and judged as to the above plaintiff's loss of operation ability by recognizing the above plaintiff's physical reexamination as well as the follow-up disability in the area of mental and physical area, and recognizing only the follow-up disability in the area of Manyang and Manyang, and judged as to the above plaintiff's loss of operation ability. The above measures of the court below are acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law as to the violation of the rules of evidence or the

(2) The lower court also acknowledged that Nonparty 1, as Nonparty 1, was at the right-hand turn to enter the rest area in the instant accident site where a stop line is installed at a point where the left-hand turn is permitted to enter the rest area, and was negligent in failing to examine whether the vehicles operating the opposite vehicle are making a left-hand turn to the rest area. The lower court, while Nonparty 1, who was driving the said vehicle, was on board in excess of the total number of six persons, including Plaintiff 1 and his family members, etc., who are the lodging of Nonparty 1, and in particular, Nonparty 1, who was aware of the fact that he was faced with the instant accident, by taking into account the aforementioned status and living relationship, considered the negligence of the said Nonparty 1 in calculating the damages amount of the Plaintiffs’ damages on the part of the victim.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Meu1759, Feb. 10, 1987; 95Da41239, Feb. 27, 1996); and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to offsetting negligence or by misunderstanding of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the court below, and the Supreme Court precedents with respect to which a lawsuit is filed are different from this case. All of the plaintiffs' arguments on this issue are without merit.

2. We examine the Defendant’s ground of appeal against the Plaintiff 1.

(1) If the victim of a tort concurrently engages in business falling under two or more sources at the time of the accident, in light of the nature of each business or the type of work, etc., his/her business shall be compatible independently and independently, and only if the victim actually does not concentrate on either of his/her business, the amount of loss of income of each type of business shall be assessed and added individually in calculating the lost income of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da33268, Nov. 27, 1992; 95Da32693, Mar. 8, 196).

In this purport, the court below determined that the plaintiff 1 had a license for the second-class mid-term operator, the first-class low-ranking operator, and the first-class mid-term operator from March 191 to the date of the accident in this case, and had one type of a mid-term operator (title BH, 0.2 cubic meters, and the second-class part-time operator), and did not separately employ a mid-term operator, and operated the second-term operator, the second-term operator and the second-class contract operator, while driving the second-term operator directly. Unlike the case of driving incidental to business other than ordinary driving, the rent differs depending on whether the middle-term operator is accompanied, and the middle-term operator needs to drive the second-term operator in the above business, and it is justified in calculating the plaintiff's income as an independent part-time operator's income for the reason that the second-term operator's business operation as a mid-term operator is an independent part-time operator's income and independent hospitalization.

(2) The amount of the lost profit of a victim who had a certain amount of income at the time of tort shall be calculated based on objective and reasonable data by determining the amount of income actually earned by the victim at the time of the accident. In this case, when the victim has a reported income to the tax authority, the reported amount of income shall be deemed the amount of income at the time of the accident. However, if objective and reasonable data exists to determine that the reported amount of income is considerably low or that there was other income than the reported income, only the reported amount of income shall not be deemed the amount of income at the time of the accident by the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da37885 delivered on September 30, 1994).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below did not determine that the above plaintiff 1's monthly average wage of 3 to 4 years is 1,234,471, and that the above plaintiff 1's monthly average wage of 3 to 4 years is 1,234,471, and that the above average monthly wage of 3 to 4 years of 3 years of 4 years of 1993 of 193 of 193 of 193 of 193 of 193 of 193 of 197, 200, 200 of 1,50,000 of 1,000 of 1,00 of 1,000 of 3 to 4,000 of 3 and 4 years of 4,000 of 3,00 of 1,000 won of 1,00 won of 1,000 won of 1,000 won of 1,00.

(3) Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to calculation of lost income, or incomplete deliberation, or by misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, all arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)