(a)the basis for calculating the lost income of the victim;

(b)whether the daily income is calculated on the basis of statistical income uniformly in cases where statistical income, such as the basic statistical survey report on the wage structure, is higher than the actual income of the victim at the time of the accident;

A. In a tort compensation case, the victim’s actual income can be assessed on the basis of the victim’s actual income at the time of the accident and can be assessed on the basis of estimated income, including statistical income. As such, since the computation of the actual income is an uncertain future fact forecast, it is sufficient to calculate the reasonable and objective expected income based on the specific circumstances that were present in the pertinent case, and is not necessarily a legitimate calculation method.

B. In a case where the victim had earned a certain amount of income while working in the workplace at the time of the accident, if objective data exists to determine the actual income at the time of the accident against the victim, and if it is possible to calculate the reasonable and objectivity expected income based on such objective data, the actual income should be calculated based on the actual income at the time of the accident, and if the statistical income such as the statistical survey report on the basic statistics of the wage structure is higher than the actual income, the actual income may be calculated based on such statistical income only on the case where a special circumstance exists that the victim would have obtained a stolen income as much as the statistics income actually earned at the time of the accident (if the general labor wage is much higher than the actual income, the probability that the general labor wage would be engaged in the general labor is high).

Civil Act Article 763 (Article 393)

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da14526 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 101). Supreme Court Decision 90Da13710 delivered on January 15, 1991 (Gong191, 743)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Han Han-Jon Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na1175 delivered on April 21, 1994

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the lost income shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in calculating the lost income of the deceased non-party who died from the traffic accident of this case, the court below acknowledged that the deceased used the personal taxi transport business from January 7, 1982 to August 2, 1987 and worked as a taxi driver from May 1, 191 to the time of the accident of this case, and held that the above deceased's driving experience at the time of the accident of this case is at least 10 years and 6 months in light of the relevant laws and regulations at the time of the commencement of individual taxi transport business, the above deceased's driving experience at the time of the accident of this case requires three or more years of driving experience. The above deceased's driving experience at the time of the accident of this case is at least 90 months in calculating the lost income of the deceased, which is similar to the deceased's occupation in the basic statistical survey report on wage structure of 1992 published by the Ministry of Labor (number 985, career 10 years or more). The defendant's average wages at the time of this case should be assessed as 90 days of the deceased's work.

(2) In a tort compensation case, the victim's actual income can be assessed on the basis of the victim's actual income at the time of the accident and it can be assessed on the basis of estimated income, including statistical income. Since the computation of the actual income is an uncertain future fact forecast, it is sufficient to calculate the reasonable and objective expectation income based on the specific circumstances present in the case in question, and only one side can be assessed on the basis of the reasonable and objective expectation income (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da14526, Nov. 13, 1992). However, in the case where the victim gains a certain amount of income while working at the workplace at the time of the accident, there is an objective material that can determine the actual income at the time of the accident, so if the statistical income is higher than the actual income, it should be calculated on the basis of the actual income at the time of the accident, and if it can be calculated on the basis of the statistics that actually earned at the time of the accident, it would be more probable that the actual income will be calculated on the basis of general labor income (see Supreme Court Decision 2000).

(3) According to the records, from May 1, 191 to the time of the accident in this case, the above deceased's working as a taxi driver at the ○○ Transport Co., Ltd. submitted data on the wages actually received from the above non-party company (Evidence A 7, Nos. 2, 3, and Nos. 4-1 to 3), and the defendant asserted that the actual income should be based on the average wages paid by the above deceased (specific, the above assertion includes the assertion that the above deceased should be based on the average wages paid by the non-party company, but the above assertion should be based on the actual income). In this case, the court below did not recognize that the above evidence is reasonable and objective materials in calculating the expected income of the above deceased since the above evidence was not reliable, or that the above evidence should be calculated only where it is acknowledged that the statistical income would be obtained as much as the monthly income paid by the above deceased at the time of the accident in this case.

In the decision of the court below on January 15, 1991, 90Da13710 of party members invoked by the court below, the decision of the court below held that, in calculating the future actual income to be acquired by victims due to tort, if the general daily wage at the time of closing argument is a large amount of the ordinary daily wage, the ordinary daily wage may be used as a standard. As such, as in the case of this case, the statistical income in the statistical survey report of the basic statistical survey report on the wage structure published by the Ministry of Labor is not applied uniformly to the case where the statistical income in the basic

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the actual income of the above deceased should be based on the actual income that the deceased was paid by the non-party ○ Transport Co., Ltd. at the time of the accident without examining whether there is a special circumstance that the above deceased could obtain the income in proportion to the statistical income higher than the wage that the deceased was receiving at the time of the accident, on the ground that the average wage of the workers engaged in the same kind of work than the wage of the workplace can be used as the basis for the assessment of the lost ability of the victim's loss, and that it can be used as the basis for the determination of monetary performance of the above deceased's working ability, and it is not clear that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the driving income of the deceased (number 985, 100, 1985, 100, 1996, 199, 209, 2000, 300,000,000).

(4) The defendant filed an appeal against the part of the judgment below against the defendant as to consolation money, but no ground of appeal as to this part is stated in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief.

(5) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs regarding the plaintiff's lost income is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's remaining part of the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to this part of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)