(a) Whether the victim's loss of labor ability is appropriate for calculating the lost earnings by means of multiplying the victim's loss of labor ability by the previous occupation income;

B. Whether the appellate court orders the payment of damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the date of imposition of the first instance judgment to the date of full payment, while changing the judgment of the first instance court

A. If a person who sustained an injury by a third party’s unlawful act is engaged in a certain occupation at the time of the accident and has become unable to engage in such occupation any longer due to physical disability caused by an accident, the lost profit may be calculated by calculating the rate of loss of labor ability determined reasonably and objectively in accordance with the empirical rule, taking into account all of the following factors: the victim’s age, degree of education, nature of the previous occupation, work experience and skill training, the possibility of occupational change in similar occupational categories or other occupational categories, probability and probability of such change, and other social and economic conditions, and then multiplying the victim’s previous occupational income.

B. While the appellate court rendered a judgment to change the amount cited by the judgment of the court of first instance on the part of the defendant's appeal to the plaintiff, the amount of damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of five percent per annum from the date of establishment of the tort until the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, it is unlawful as it erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion,

(a) Article 763 of the Civil Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu538 Decided March 25, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu331 Decided March 10, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 85Meu195 Decided May 12, 1987

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant-Appellant No. 10

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1175 delivered on September 15, 1986

Among the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the delayed damages part against the plaintiff 1 shall be reversed and decided as follows:

Of the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part that ordered payment exceeding 29,28,323 won per annum from August 1, 1984 to September 15, 1986, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal:

Even though a person injured by a tort of another person was engaged in a certain occupation at the time of the accident and was unable to engage in such occupation any longer due to physical disability caused by an accident, the actual profit can be calculated by drawing the rate of loss of labor ability determined reasonably and objectively in accordance with the empirical rule by taking into account all the victim's age, educational level, characteristics of the previous occupation, work experience and degree of skill training, physical degree, work experience and skill degree, possibility of and probability of occupational occupation to similar occupational categories or other occupational categories, and their probability and probability, and other social and economic conditions, and by multiplying the victim's previous occupational income by the rate of loss of labor ability as an external major at 27%. From this point of view, the court below is reasonable to calculate the actual profit by determining the rate of loss of labor ability as an external major of the plaintiff in the way of multiplying the previous income by the rate of loss of labor ability of 27%, and this is not in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, etc., and therefore, it cannot be employed in this case.

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant’s attorney

The judgment of the court below on the facts that the ratio of the plaintiff 1's negligence contributed to the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case is 10%, that the plaintiff was 500,000 won monthly as external major at the time of the accident, and that the court below calculated the amount of consolation money of KRW 2,00,000 and KRW 1,00,000 to the plaintiff 1 in light of the overall circumstances shown in this case at the time of the judgment of the court below, is reasonable in light of various materials indicated in the records, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

However, according to the original judgment, while the court below rendered a decision to partially cite and change the amount cited by the judgment of the court of first instance to the same plaintiff in this case for which the plaintiff 1 ordered the performance of monetary obligation, the court below held that the amount of damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of five percent per annum from August 1, 1984 to January 31, 1986, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of the decision of the court of first instance, which is the date of the establishment of the tort of this case, and the amount of damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of twenty-five percent per annum, which is the date of full payment from the next day to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court below, which is a fact-finding court, has erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 8

In addition, as seen above, a party member is sufficient to render a judgment, and thus, a final judgment is to be rendered.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 29,28,323 won including property damage and consolation money and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from August 1, 1984 to September 15, 1986, which is the date of the establishment of the tort of this case, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified only within the above recognition limit. The part exceeding the above acceptance limit among the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the above acceptance limit, shall be revoked unfairly and dismissed.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant's appeal excluding the part of compensation for delay against plaintiff 1 among the plaintiffs' appeals are without merit. The defendant's appeal against the above part of compensation for delay is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who accept the appeal and decide to render a final judgment.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)