Whether a loss equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the wage profit to be increased in the future is ordinary loss (affirmative)

In principle, the lost profit of a wage income earner who has lost his/her ability to work due to a tort shall be calculated on the basis of the profit at the time of the loss of his/her ability to work, but if there are objective data which can clearly be predicted that the profit of the future would be increased, the profit of the future shall also be considered in calculating the profit of the future. As such, the loss equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the profit of the future, which would be increased in the future, is considered to be an ordinary loss recognized as normal in light of social norms, and therefore, it shall be included in the scope of compensation as a matter of course, and the scope of compensation should not vary depending on whether the perpetrator knew or could have known the fact that the victim would have known that the profit of the future

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2322 delivered on April 14, 1981 (definite) 80Da1994 delivered on October 24, 1981 (definite) 86Meu1905 delivered on April 14, 1987 (definite) 86Meu816 delivered on September 8, 1987 (definite)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na3750 delivered on January 28, 1988

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In principle, the daily profit of the wage income earner who has lost his ability to work due to the tort shall be calculated on the basis of the wage profit at the time of the loss of his ability to work, but if there are objective data which can clearly be predicted to the extent that the wage profit in the future would have been increased, the wage profit to be increased in the future shall also be considered in calculating the lost profit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Da1056, Jun. 7, 197; Supreme Court Decision 76Da2418, Nov. 8, 197; Supreme Court Decision 87Da1583, Nov. 10, 1987).

Therefore, the damages equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the lost profit to be increased in the future should be included in the scope of compensation as a matter of course, and the scope of compensation should not vary depending on whether the perpetrator knew or could have known the fact that the victim's profit will be increased in the future.

Unlike the previous opinion, a party member expressed his/her view that he/she is liable for compensation only when he/she knew or could have known the fact that the loss resulting from the loss of wage profit to be increased in the future is a loss due to special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da2322, Apr. 14, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 80Da1994, Oct. 24, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1905, Apr. 14, 1987; 86Meu816, Sept. 8, 1987).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below asserted that, according to the remuneration regulations of the Korea Telecommunication Corporation, the plaintiff, who is the victim of the traffic accident of this case, would receive the increased salary according to the salary grade 1 each year while raising the salary grade. Thus, in calculating damages per day of the daily income of this case, employees under the above provision on the remuneration regulations of the Corporation provide that the plaintiff shall receive the increased salary every time when the increase is made on January 1 or July 1 of the year in salary grade 1, can be recognized. However, this is a loss due to the so-called special circumstance, and since the defendant received the increased salary according to the salary grade after the accident of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff knew or could have known that the income would have increased, the above argument of the plaintiff is groundless.

However, as mentioned above, the damage of the plaintiff's principal constitutes ordinary damages and cannot be viewed as damage due to special circumstances. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of compensation for damages, which rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the defendant knew or could have known of special circumstances, since it is reasonable to discuss this issue.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jae-young, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-won Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-young