(a) Whether the future loss of personal business operator can be calculated based on the estimated statistics income of workers engaged in the same occupational category;

(b) The case affirming the court below's decision that calculated the lost earnings of dentists by the job-related survey report for the previous three years, not by the time of the accident;

C. The case holding that a dentist’s maximum working age is 65 years based on the empirical rule

(a) Where the income of a victim who engages in a private business is mainly dependent on the labor of an individual of the business owner and the capital gains of an enterprise are below the minimum amount, the amount of loss of future income may be calculated based on the estimated statistical income of the worker engaged in the same occupation as the victim in accordance with the investigation report;

B. The case holding that the court below's decision is justified in calculating the victim's lost profit based on the investigation report in 1989, which was 3 years prior to the 1999 when the job classification report was published by the Ministry of Labor and did not separately classify the job classification of " dentist" but included the victim's contents in the job classification number 06/07 "medical doctor, dentist, veterinarian, and related employees" and provided import statistics by including the general doctor, veterinarian, and related employees, the court below is not based on the investigation report in 1991, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation.

(c) A case which recognized that a dentist could work as a dentist until he reaches the age of 65 based on the empirical rule.

Article 763(a)(b) of the Civil Code. Article 393(b) of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da2694 delivered on August 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2316), 92Da27751 delivered on December 11, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 453), 94Da19846 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2620) B. Supreme Court Decision 93Da29365 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2824)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant Law Firm Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-Dong-dong et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 93Na6455 delivered on April 28, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while obtaining a dentist's license and working for a public health clinic as a dentist's public health clinic, the court below rejected a report on the survey of wages by occupation in 191 (hereinafter "survey report") published by the Ministry of Labor in 1991 while estimatinging the expected income when the plaintiff started to work for a dentist while working for a dental clinic as a driver's health clinic. It is based on the monthly work experience of male dentist No. 063 in 199. It is reasonable that the court below determined that the amount of future income loss can be calculated based on the estimated statistical income of the worker who works for the same occupation as the victim according to the survey report (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da19846, Sept. 9, 199). In such case, the court below determined that the plaintiff's investigation report was not an " dentist's occupational category" nor an "as 99Da19846, Sept. 9, 199."

In addition, in light of the fact that there is an annual increase in wages, the circumstance that the investigation report was based on the calculation of lost profits as of the date of the accident, such as the theory of lawsuit, cannot be considered as the ground for appeal by the defendant, and the case of the party members citing the issue is not appropriate in this case where the issue is different. The argument is without merit.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3:

According to relevant evidence and records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff can work as a dentist until he reaches the age of 65 based on the empirical rule, and that the plaintiff, who lost 100% labor ability, requires the opening of an ordinary adult male family member, based on macroscopic evidence, is also justified, and there is no error in the incomplete hearing or in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, the 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 Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)