The method of calculating the actual profit in case of partial loss of labor ability;

In order to calculate the lost earnings of the mining department which has lost the entire working ability as a mining worker and has lost part of the working ability as a worker employed in the general rural community, it shall be determined based on the ordinary daily wages at the time of the accident from the time of the closing of argument to the time of closing of argument, and shall be determined as at the time of closing of argument

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2697 Delivered on January 26, 1971

Plaintiff 1 and one other, Attorneys Kim Yong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Song-tae, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na297 delivered on July 12, 1979

The part ordering the Defendant to compensate for property damage among the original judgment is reversed, and each part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All remaining appeals by the defendant and plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the above appeal are assessed against each appellant.

First, the defendant's attorney's third ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant paid 70,000 won to the plaintiff 2 as special compensation, etc., and judged that the consolation money to the plaintiff should be taken into consideration in determining the amount of consolation money to the plaintiff, and judged that the above amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff was reasonable in consideration of all the circumstances such as the circumstances shown in its reasoning, etc. as stated in its reasoning, as stated in its reasoning, such fact that the above amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff 2 was paid to the above plaintiff 30,000 won in consideration of the above amount of consolation money, and the above amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff 2 shall be considered in determining the above amount of consolation money in consideration of the above amount of consolation money as stated in its judgment, and there is no error of law in the original judgment of 300,000 won in the amount of consolation money to be paid to the plaintiff 2 as stated in its reasoning. Thus, this part of the judgment below is without merit.

Next, the defendant's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff 1 was a male and female worker of 5th May 27, 1949 and 2nd 1942.3rd 19th 2nd 5th 2nd 5th 7th 5th 5th 7th 5th 5th 6th 5th 5th 6th 5th 5th 5th 6th 5th 5th 6th 5th 5th 6th 5th 5th 5th 5th 196th 5th 5th 5th 5th 5th 196th 5th 5th 5th 5th 200 1st 5th 5th 5th 196th 2nd 195th 2nd 195th 2nd 196th 2nd 197th 20 1st 205th 197.

However, in order to calculate the profit from the lost work of the light department which has lost the entire working ability as a mining worker and has lost 15% as a general rural worker, it shall be calculated by deducting the sum of the average wage from the time of the accident to the time of the closing of argument (or the time close to the closing of argument) and the amount equivalent to 85% of the ordinary rural work wages at the time of the accident from the time of the accident to the time of the closing of argument, and the amount equivalent to 85% of the ordinary rural work wages at the time of the closing of argument, from the time of the accident, until the time of the closing of argument, while (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2697, Jan. 26, 1971). However, the court below did not calculate the amount of loss for the above 53% annual work profit from the time of the accident to the time of the accident without calculating the above method and calculating the amount of damages for the above 14th annual work profit from each of the above 17th annual work wages from the accident to the age of 53rd.

Next, we examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiffs' injury is attributable to the defendant's employees' negligence in performing their duties as stated in its judgment, and this is judged that there was an negligence that was higher than the plaintiffs' wages in the withdrawal of the defendant's damages without wearing the shot-proof machine or the shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot-shot

Therefore, among the original judgment, the part ordering the defendant to compensate for each of the plaintiffs' property damages (the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 10,410,183 won and 10,410,183 won to the plaintiff 2, and the part ordering the defendant 2 to pay an amount with an annual rate of 5% from November 18, 1977 to the full payment system) shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. Since the defendant's remaining appeal and each of the plaintiffs' appeals are without merit, each of them shall be dismissed, and the costs of dismissal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)