The legitimacy of deeming that the victim would immediately engage in daily work in the future in the case of partial loss of labor ability, by itself, would not be engaged in the previous occupation.

Even if the victim was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to the aftermath of a traffic accident, such fact alone cannot be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage, and it can be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the daily wage, only if there are special circumstances that the victim is unable to engage in the future occupation or occupation with more income than the urban daily wage, and it is difficult for him to engage in only the daily work.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu49 Decided September 24, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Song-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na3580 delivered on February 15, 1985

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff was unable to engage in the above 22 percent job of an operator who is concurrently holding concurrent office concurrently with the above emergal emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral gal emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral gal emeral emeral emeral gal emeral emeral gal emeral emeral emeral emeral gal emeral emeral emeral emeral gal emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral e.

However, even if the plaintiff was unable to engage in the previous original work due to the original work after the original work, it cannot be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily work wage. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to his future income only if there are special circumstances predicted that it is difficult to engage in the future work or occupation with more income than the urban daily work wage and it is impossible to engage in the daily work (refer to Supreme Court Decision 85Meu449 delivered on September 24, 1985). The court below did not examine whether there are special circumstances that the plaintiff is unable to engage in the work or occupation with more income than his future daily work wage, and that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily work wage, and it becomes the same as its reasoning. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of lost income and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by pointing out the violation of the rules of evidence.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below, and the remaining appeal by the defendant is without merit. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)