[손해배상][공1987.5.15.(800),716]
A. Whether the future income of a person who was unable to engage in the previous occupation because he/she lost 38 percent of his/her ability to work due to aftermath of an accident can be presumed as the amount equivalent to the urban daily wages (negative)
B. The court's assistance in the absence of grounds of appeal as to the part against which the loss occurred in the entirety of the above materials
A. The mere fact that a person cannot perform his/her occupation any longer because he/she has lost his/her ability to work as a transport carrier over the calendar due to an accident can no longer be presumed to be the amount equivalent to urban daily wages, and it can not be presumed that his/her future income is the amount equivalent to urban daily wages, and only if there are special circumstances anticipated that he/she cannot engage in any occupation or occupation that has more income than urban daily wages, it can be presumed that his/her future income is the amount equivalent to the daily wages.
B. If the appeal against the losing part of the consolation money was not made, but the appeal against the consolation money portion is not dismissed, this part of the appeal shall not be dismissed.
A. Article 763 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1511 Decided March 24, 1987 (dong) Decided 85Meu449 Decided September 24, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu311 Decided March 24, 1987 (dong) (hereinafter referred to as "Dong")
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Cho Young-gu, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2181 delivered on April 18, 1986
The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The defendants' remaining appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendants.
We examine the grounds of appeal on the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the method of calculating the amount of damages by the defendant Daie Coal Corporation and the attorney of the defendant Korea Coal Corporation.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the plaintiff's property damage caused by the tort of this case, the court below held that, in calculating the plaintiff's property damage, the plaintiff lost 38 percent of the labor ability as the 4th and the 5th and the 35th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 55th and the 10th and the 55th and the 55th and the 10th and the 30th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 10th and the 200th
However, even if the plaintiff was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to after-the-job legacy in the original adjudication, it cannot be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to his future income only when there are special circumstances that it is difficult for the plaintiff to engage in an occupation or occupation with more income than the urban daily wage in the future and it is predicted that it is impossible to engage only in daily work (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu449 delivered on September 24, 1985). The court below did not examine whether the plaintiff is unable to engage in an occupation or occupation with more income than his future daily wage in the occupation or occupation, and there are special circumstances that it is impossible to engage only in the urban daily work, and that his future income is the amount equivalent to the daily daily wage in the city, and it constitutes a ground for reversal of Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Calculation of Actual Income and the violation of the Rules of Evidence, etc.
On the other hand, the Defendants did not submit the grounds of appeal as to the consolation money portion while they did not submit the grounds of appeal as to the entire portion of the judgment below against them. Therefore, this part of the grounds of appeal
Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants as to property damage cannot be reversed, and the remaining grounds of appeal against the defendant's attorney's property damage are omitted, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below's judgment, for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendants' appeal as to the consolation money portion is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by
Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)