According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of offsetting the above negligence, on the ground that the plaintiff 1 did not wear the safety level at the time of the accident, thereby creating the cause of the occurrence of the accident or the expansion of damages. However, there is no evidence to find that the defendant 1 had installed the safety level mark on the express bus owned by the defendant at the time of the accident, and according to the records of No. 11 of this case without dispute, the promulgation of No. 589 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport, which is the ground for the attachment of the safety level mark, was made on February 25, 1978 after the accident, and the above bus was already attached with the safety mark at the time of the accident, and the court below did not err in misunderstanding the legal principles as to the safety mark at the time of the accident, since the defendant 1's legal representative did not wear the safety mark at the time of the accident, and there was no further error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff 1 of this case.

2. We examine the part of the ground of appeal No. 3 as to the calculation of lost earnings due to the loss of labor ability. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the lost earnings of Plaintiff 1, the court below determined that the above Plaintiff was unable to work as the Deputy Director of the Sales Division due to the injury or legacy caused by the accident while working as the Deputy Director of the Korea Food and Drug Sales Division, and that the above Plaintiff was disqualified, and lost 54 percent of the working ability as a general worker of the city. If the above accident had not occurred, the above Plaintiff could work for the above company until the age of 55, and therefore, the above Plaintiff’s lost earnings were eventually to have worked for the above company until the age of 55, and therefore, it is clear that the above Plaintiff’s lost earnings are equivalent to the amount obtained by deducting the profit equivalent to the wages which the above Plaintiff could obtain due to the remaining working ability of the above Plaintiff, and it is calculated by the age of 50,000 from the time the remaining labor ability was calculated by the age of 5,00,0,000 square meters.

However, in order to calculate the amount of actual earnings of the above plaintiff who lost the entire daily work ability as the vice head of the above sales division, and lost 54 percent of the work ability as a general worker of the above sales division, the amount equivalent to 46 percent of the daily work wage of the general city at the time of the accident from the time of the accident to the time of the closing of argument (or the time close to the closing of argument) since the above sales division worked as the vice head of the above sales division, and the amount equivalent to 46 percent of the daily work wage of the general city at the time of the accident should be deducted from the amount equivalent to 46 percent of the daily work wage of the general city at the time of the closing of argument, although the court below did not determine whether to change the daily work wage of the general city at the time of the accident, it is difficult to determine the amount of damages equivalent to the daily work wage on the basis of the above daily work wage of the general worker at the time of the accident, or was in violation of the reasoning and the reasoning for the appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da174747, May 1797.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)