In tort, the legal principles of offsetting profits and losses, and the case of wrong interpretation.

Except in extenuating circumstances, a person who sustained an injury due to a tort shall not be entitled to deduct living expenses from the income that he/she can obtain, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 393 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Countries

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na923 delivered on February 28, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 65Na923 delivered on February 28, 1966

Of the original judgment, the part against the Plaintiff is reversed;

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in recognizing the plaintiff's passive damage, the plaintiff's annual income is 63,000 won, and since the plaintiff's annual living expenses are 31,500 won, 31,500 won after deducting it is the net income which can be earned each year by the plaintiff.

However, if the plaintiff died due to the tort in this case, it is deemed that the amount after deducting the cost of living is the net profit that the plaintiff can obtain from the income accrued from the tort. However, unless there are special circumstances, since the tort in this case, it cannot be said that the amount of living expenses will continuously be borne by the age eligible for employment, and that the amount of living expenses cannot be saved due to the injury. Thus, even though the original judgment does not have to deduct the cost of living expenses, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of offsetting profit and loss in the tort, and it is therefore erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of offsetting profit and loss in the tort.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below stated that the Korean man's working age can be seen as 50 years of age according to the rule of experience. Since such facts cannot be viewed as the rule of experience, it is obvious that the court below recognized the plaintiff's working age as 50 years of age without examining whether there is a special circumstance that the plaintiff's working age is 50 years of age, and it is clear that the court below erred in the omission of reason, and therefore, the illegality in this case has influenced the judgment.

Therefore, the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment is not to be reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu