(a) The method for calculating the amount of income that a victim who is a minor may earn;

B. The nature of money received as a criminal agreement in the course of investigation or criminal trial

(c) The case affirming the court below's measure that the criminal agreement was paid as consolation money;

A. In a tort compensation case, the victim’s actual income in particular the minor’s future income cannot be demanded specific and certain proof of the amount of income that the victim could obtain in the future because it does not correspond to the prediction of uncertain future facts. As such, it is sufficient for the court to calculate it within the extent that it does not lose rationality and objectivity based on the empirical rule and form as a judge, taking into account all circumstances presented in the case in question, to the extent that it does not lose rationality and objectivity.

B. In the course of the investigation or criminal trial against the perpetrator of the illegal act, where the victim agreed that the perpetrator would not be punished for the perpetrator, it shall be interpreted that the amount received at the time of the agreement is paid as part of the compensation for property damage, barring special circumstances to indicate that the amount would be paid as consolation money in particular.

(c) The case affirming the decision of the court below that the criminal agreement amount paid by the driver of the household under detention to the father of the victim was paid as consolation money;

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu31 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 626) (Gong1991, 205). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu313 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 205) (Gong198, 989), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu28191 delivered on December 11, 1990 (Gong191, 478), Supreme Court Decision 91Da5389 delivered on April 23, 191 (Gong191, 147)

Kim Jae- Jae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan High Court Decision 91Na1257 delivered on April 25, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in calculating the lost income of the deceased Kim from the accident in this case, the above deceased is a normal and healthy male who graduated from the national school at the time of the accident and was waiting at middle school entrance, and is a student status of the deceased, and his/her ability to work should be assessed, and the person has the ability to obtain minimum the daily wage in the construction sector, barring any special circumstances, the court below calculated the lost income on the basis of the daily wage of the ordinary workers in the construction sector among the monthly market price of the Korea Construction Association published.

In short, the court below recognized that, considering the state of the deceased’s health, educational relations, etc., the deceased could grow in the future if he did not have the accident of this case and be engaged in at least in the work of ordinary personnel in the construction sector. In light of the records, the court below’s determination of the income which the above deceased could obtain in the future is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of lost income.

In damages cases involving tort, in particular, the victim's future income in the victim's future future income is nothing more than the prediction of an uncertain future fact, and therefore it cannot be demanded a specific and reliable proof of the amount of income that the victim can obtain in the future. Therefore, the court must calculate it to the extent that it does not lose rationality and objectivity based on the empirical rule and the form of judge as a judge, taking into account the circumstances revealed in the case in question. There is no reason to discuss it.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party, who is the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident of this case, paid 5.5 million won as criminal agreement amount to the plaintiff Kim Jae- Jae, the father of the above deceased, and thus, should be deducted from the compensation for property damage. The above non-party's assertion that the above non-party paid such money is recognized as having paid the above money, but in light of all damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs caused by the accident of this case, the above non-party, who was detained at the time of the above non-party's death, was paid to the above plaintiff who suffered severe pain due to the death of the non-party, who caused the above non-party's severe pain, and thus, the above agreement

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no illegality in the theory of lawsuit.

In the course of the investigation or criminal trial against the perpetrator of a tort, where the victim agreed that the amount of money under the pretext of the agreement was not paid to the perpetrator, and that the amount received at the time of the agreement was paid as part of the damages for property, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary that it was clearly stated that the amount was paid as consolation money, it is like the theory of lawsuit. However, in this case, the court below recognized that there was the intention of the party concerned that the above agreement was paid as consolation money in light of all the circumstances at the time of the agreement, and that there was an opinion of the party concerned as long as the above agreement was paid as consolation money in light of all the circumstances at the time of the agreement, and the decision above on the record is acceptable, and therefore the court below did not make any decision contrary to the above precedents. There is no reason to argue.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)