Where the standard time for calculating income that can be earned by agricultural workers in the future has been seen as the time of filing a lawsuit;

Since this claim for injury compensation is a claim for damages that can be earned in the future as damages, the base time of calculating the future revenues shall not be deemed to be the time of tort, but shall be at the time of the closing of argument, and even if the income of agricultural workers was calculated as at the time of the closing of argument before the time of the closing of argument, it shall be deemed to be a significant economic condition in the Republic of Korea. Therefore, even if the judgment of the original judgment cannot be deemed to be disadvantageous to the defendant, and even if the victim did not reside in the rural community, it shall not be deemed that there is an unlawful cause in calculating the amount of damages by calculating the income as an agricultural worker who is the minimum income under the premise that the operating ability

Article 393 of the Civil Act, Article 751 of the Civil Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Nam-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 65Na603 delivered on May 13, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

With respect to the first ground for appeal by Defendant ○○○○○

Since the claim for damages in this case claims future income as damages, the standard time of calculating future income shall not be deemed as at the time of tort, but shall be determined as at the time of the closing of argument, but even if the standard was calculated as at the time of the filing of the lawsuit prior to the time of the closing of argument, even if the income of agricultural workers is calculated as at the time of the closing of argument, it shall be a significant economic condition in the Republic of Korea. Thus, such judgment cannot be deemed disadvantageous to the defendant, and even if the victim did not reside in rural areas, it shall not be deemed that there was an unlawful ground for the defendant's appeal.

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

It is not reasonable to accept the original judgment in respect of theory income or living expenses based on evidence, and it is not reasonable to conclude that there is an error of law in the original judgment.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)