[1] Criteria for calculating lost income due to a tort

[2] The case holding that where the victim of a tort acquired a doctor's license and worked as a public health doctor, the amount of income surveyed as being increased due to the increase in the career in the statistics income, can be calculated on the basis of the average statistical income in calculating the actual income based on the average statistical income

[1] In principle, lost income due to a tort shall be based on the income of the occupation at the time when the damage was caused by the tort, but it shall not be based on the income of the occupation or status at the time of the tort due to the circumstances where the occupation or status is changed, etc., and where no other appropriate method exists, it may be calculated based on statistical income which is highly probable to have been obtained based on the victim's qualification or academic background. In calculating the method, it may be calculated based on statistical income according to changes in the career when special circumstances are acknowledged that the increase or decrease in income is considerably certain.

[2] The case holding that where the victim of a tort has obtained a doctor's license and has worked as a public health doctor, and in the absence of such tort, it is deemed that the actual income will be calculated on the basis of the average statistical income of life science and health experts on the basic statistical survey report on the structure of wage and the basic statistical survey report, and further, it can be calculated on the basis of the amount of income surveyed as the increase in the career from the statistical income as the increase in the amount of income.

[1] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da54286 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1423) Supreme Court Decision 95Da1361 delivered on September 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 295) Supreme Court Decision 97Da40049 delivered on November 28, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 95)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Oat-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na927 delivered on November 12, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The gist of the argument in the grounds of appeal is that the victim non-party 1 can continue to serve as a doctor after the completion of compulsory service as a public health doctor, start to serve as a medical specialist, or gain more income as a result of the increase in the career period, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misunderstanding of the relevant legal principles.

In principle, lost income due to a tort shall be based on the income of the occupation at the time when the damage was caused by the tort, but it cannot be based on the income of the occupation or status at the time when the damage was caused by the tort, due to circumstances, etc. where the occupation or status at that time is changed, and where no other proper method exists, it may be calculated based on statistical income with a reasonable probability to have been obtained based on the victim's qualifications or academic background. In calculating the profit by such method, when special circumstances are acknowledged to a considerable degree of certainty, it may be calculated based on statistical income resulting from changes in the career (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da1361, Sept. 10, 196).

In full view of all the circumstances such as the above victim's already obtained a medical doctor's license as well as coming from work as a public health doctor of the Medical Center, the court below found that if there was no accident of this case, the period of service of the health will be completed and the career as a doctor will be added to the career as a doctor, it is highly reliable. Under the fact-finding report of the basic statistical survey on the wage structure, the court below found that the amount of income investigated as a result of the increase of the average statistical income of biological and health specialists such as vegetological scholars, plant scholars, vegetology, pasology, genetics, genetics, ecological scholars, agricultural and fishery scholars, soil scholars, dentists, dentists, dentists, veterinarians, veterinarians, veterinarians, nurses, nurses, nurses, and midwifery experts, etc., should be based on the average statistical income of the living science and health specialists who were predicted, and further, it is acceptable in light of the theory of the above precedents, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or in the calculation

The Supreme Court precedents required in the grounds of appeal are related to the cases where it is not recognized that there is a considerable degree of increase in earnings or earnings due to the increase in the career of statistical income because they were not employed in the category of the relevant statistical income even if they did not acquire the professional qualification or acquired the professional qualification, and therefore, they cannot be an appropriate precedent in this case that differs from the specific circumstances.

We cannot accept the arguments in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)