(b) The extent of requiring a certification for future income in the calculation of lost income due to a tort;

(c) The case that is calculated on the basis of the wages of the "aircraft operator, airline operator and flight engineer operator" (the classification in the 1990s), other than the wages of "aircraft operator, flight navigator and flight engineer operator" (the classification in the 1990s)," in a report on the status quo of wages by occupation and class of the anticipated income after discharge of the Air Force

B. In calculating the lost income due to a tort, the verification on the actual future income is sufficient as a certification of income with a considerable probability within the extent that it does not lose reasonableness and objectivity, rather than a proof on specific and reliable income that the victim could actually obtain by reducing it compared to the degree of proof on past facts.

C. The case affirming the judgment below's calculation of the plaintiff's expected income when the victim was employed as a non-governmental airline pilot after the plaintiff was discharged from active service based on the revised Korean Standard Occupational Classification (third revised in 1974), which is the basis for the classification of occupation in the report on fact-finding of wages by job type in 1991, where the "aircraft and high-class crew" in the classification number No. 04 includes the direction and navigation of the victim's duties, the direction and supervision of the engine room, maritime activities and machinery inspection, restoration and maintenance of the cargo line on board the ship's line, and it is significant to the party member that the direction and supervision of the engine room on board the ship, the order of the engine room on board the ship's maritime activities or machinery inspection, and the order of repair and maintenance of the cargo ship in anchor, and it is not based on the wages of the "aircraft and high-class crew" in the classification number No. 04 of the report on fact-finding survey of wages by job type in 1991.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, it is the opinion of the party members that the calculation of the present price of the lost profit in the future by deducting the intermediate interest from the calculation method of the arm's length calculation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1858, Jun. 28, 1988). It is without merit to discuss this issue.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

원심이 채용한 증거에 의하면, 공군의 경우 임관시 주특기가 비행조종으로 분류되는 자에게는 전역 및 타 특기로 전환시까지 비행수당이 정기적으로 지급되고 있으며, 망 소외인도 이 사고로 사망할 당시 공군 ○○○○부대의 팬텀기 후방석 전투기 조종사로 일선에서 상시대기조종사로 근무하면서 비행수당으로 매월 금 407,000원을 지급받아 왔으므로 이 사건 사고가 없었더라면 이후에도 계속 팬텀기 후방석 전투기 조종사로 근무하리라고 보여지고, 따라서 위 소외인에 대한 위 비행수당의 지급원인이 계속하여 발생할 상당한 개연성이 있다고 할 것이므로 원심이 이와 같은 취지에서 비행수당을 일실이익에 포함시킨 조치는 정당하다고 할 것이다.

Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the lost profit of this case on the basis of adjusted salary and various allowances in relation to the above deceased non-party's class, in holding that the lost profit of this case to be increased due to changes in the salary class, allowance system, etc. in the future is ordinary damage, barring any special circumstances. In light of the records, such measures of the court below are proper, and such measures of the court below are justified, and it is also true that continuous service is able to be paid whenever the service performance exceeds the promotion period for those who have good service performance after receiving

Therefore, the above judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of lost profits, nor did it contain any errors in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. As to the third ground for appeal:

In calculating the lost profit due to a tort, the certification of actual future income is sufficient as a certification of income with a considerable probability within the extent that it does not lose rationality and objectivity, rather than a proof of specific and reliable income that can be gained by the victim in reality by reducing it compared to the degree of proof of past facts (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da36175 delivered on March 12, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the lost profit of the deceased non-party who died of the accident during his service under the Air Force Order of the Air Force of the Air Force ○○○○ unit. The court below rejected the report on the actual wage status survey by occupation in 1991 while estimatinging the expected income when the deceased was employed as the pilot of the private airline after discharge, and based on the wage of the person who has worked for more than 10 years among the "aircraft pilot, airline and flight engineer" in the classification number 041 in the report on actual wage status survey by occupation in 19

However, according to the revised Korean Standard Employment Classification (the third revised of 1974) of the issuance of the Ministry of Economic Planning based on the classification of the job classification in the job classification report of the job classification of the job classification in the year 1991 includes the direction and supervision of the above deceased's work, the direction and supervision of the engine room, the inspection of maritime activities and essential goods or machinery on the ship, and the restoration and maintenance of cargo ships at anchor. If the above circumstance is above, it is not based on the wage of the "aircraft and high-class crew" No. 04 of the classification number in the job classification report of the job classification in the year 1991, but based on the wage of the "aircraft and high-class crew of the aircraft" of 041 of the classification number in the job classification report of the job classification in the year 1990, the calculation of the above deceased's lost profit can not be justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as misapprehension of legal principles and the rules of evidence.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)