(b) Calculation of lost profit damage suffered by the benefit income earner and certainty of increase in the future wage income;

(c) Scope of retirement allowances for the victim who has lost part of his/her labor ability;

B. The lost profit damage suffered by a wage income earner who lost his/her labor ability due to a tort shall, in principle, be calculated on the basis of the wage income amount that the victim had earned at the time of the tort unless there are special circumstances. However, the wage income amount to be increased in the future may also be considered in calculating the lost profit amount only when there are objective data which can sufficiently be predicted to increase the amount of the future wage income amount.

C. In light of the symptoms of injury inflicted by tort, the victim, who lost part of his/her labor capacity, could have received retirement allowances while retired from his/her office in the workplace where he/she had worked at the time of the tort if he/she had not committed the tort. However, since the aftermath of injury caused by tort, it should be calculated by deeming that the victim’s loss of the lost labor capacity could not receive retirement allowances which would have been incurred due to the fact that he/she could not properly receive retirement allowances which would have been paid if he/she had not committed the tort due to the aftermath of injury caused by the tort, rather than by deeming that the victim could not receive retirement allowances that could not have been paid

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

2. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal and the Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal No. 1

Unless there are special circumstances, damages for lost profit which a wage income earner who lost labor ability due to a tort shall, in principle, be calculated on the basis of the wage income amount that the victim had earned at the time of the tort: Provided, That the view that the income amount to be increased in the future can be considered in calculating lost profit only when there are objective data which could have been predicted to a considerable degree of increase in the future wage income amount, can be considered in calculating lost profit amount (Supreme Court Decision 76Da418 delivered on November 8, 197; Supreme Court Decision 79Da579 delivered on May 22, 197; Supreme Court en banc Decision 83Da191 delivered on June 28, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 88Da6761 delivered on December 26, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu3130 delivered on June 12, 190; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da31650 delivered on June 26, 290).

The Seoul High Court Decision 87Na1954 delivered on December 10, 1987 ruled 87Na1954 delivered on December 10, 1987 is merely a party member's decision, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case as it concerns other cases.

3. Judgment on the second ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The court below held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to passive damages or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or failing to accept the legal principles as to passive damages, since the injured party who lost part of his/her labor ability due to the aftermath of injury inflicted by tort was able to receive retirement allowances when he/she reaches the retirement age due to continuous service in the workplace where he/she had worked at the time of the tort without any tort. Due to the aftermath of injury caused by tort, the lost profit damage that would have been sustained due to the impossibility of properly receiving retirement allowances that could have been paid if he/she had been involved in the tort should not be calculated on the ground that the total amount of retirement allowances could not have been paid by the injured party, but should be calculated on the ground that only the amount equivalent to the degree that the injured party lost his/her labor ability among the retirement allowances that he/she could have received by the injured party was unable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Da816, Sep. 8, 1987; 8Da2901, Apr. 11, 19).

4. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney

The judgment of the court below which held that the plaintiff would have been able to obtain income equivalent to the income level by all industries of the graduate of the junior college at least after the plaintiff was discharged from active service in the Army for the first time without the tort of this case shall be justified in light of the evidence relations stated by the court below, and the above loss of lost income incurred by the plaintiff due to the tort of this case shall be deemed to fall under ordinary damages recognized as ordinary damages due to the tort of this case under the concept of the general society (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu6761 delivered on December 26, 1989). Thus, we cannot accept the argument of the court below that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of lost income in the first instance court, thereby failing to thoroughly examine whether the defendant knew or could have known such circumstances.

5. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)