In calculating damages, "Nomenclature Calculation Act" and "Raz-based Calculation Act"

In a case where a claim for damages is made at one time on the ground that a person's future income could not be obtained due to the illegal act of another person, it is not necessary for the creditor to think that the claim should be transplanted as a welfare because it is different from the case of bank transactions or general monetary transactions. Therefore, the court below's decision that deducts the intermediate awareness from the calculation method is justifiable.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na2895 decided August 12, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

However, in a case where a claim is made at present on the ground that the damages can not be obtained in the future due to the illegal act of another person, it is not necessary for the creditor to refrain from transplanting the claims with welfare because it is different from the case of bank transactions or general monetary transactions. Therefore, the court below is justified in having deducted the intermediate transplant by the method of Hofman type calculation, and it cannot be said that the court below erred because the creditor did not calculate the welfare under the Rafman type calculation method. Thus, the argument cannot be adopted as an independent opinion.

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

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu