[1] Criteria for calculating lost income due to a tort

[2] In the case of calculating the lost income based on statistical income, whether it is possible to calculate the lost income by means of statistical income depending on statistical income according to the increase of the number of years in the future (negative with qualification)

[1] In principle, the amount of loss of income that can be obtained by a person who dies or has a physical disability due to a tort shall be based on the income of the occupation that the person was engaged in at the time when the damage was caused by the tort, and where it cannot be based on such income, it may be calculated based on statistical income that is highly probable that the victim may obtain based on specific functions, qualifications, or academic attainments.

[2] Even in calculating the lost income based on statistical income, unless the increase or decrease of the profit is clearly certain, it shall be based on statistical income equivalent to the relevant experience at the time of the accident as a matter of principle, and it is not appropriate to base statistical income equivalent to the relevant experience at the time of closing argument at the fact-finding court.

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da27044 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1279) Supreme Court Decision 93Da49024 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 327), Supreme Court Decision 93Da54286 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1423), Supreme Court Decision 95Da1361 delivered on September 10, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 295)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Lee Won-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 97Na1454 delivered on July 25, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the first, third, and fourth points

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the deceased non-party 1 did not wear a safety bell at the time of the accident based on the macro-visual evidence, and there is no evidence to support that the deceased agreed to pay retirement allowances between the non-party 2 engaged in the transport brokerage business with the trade name, or that he can claim retirement allowances as provided in the Labor Standards Act. On the other hand, in full view of the circumstances in the judgment, all measures that the above deceased and the plaintiffs decided the amount of consolation money are just, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of the legal principles

2. On the second ground for appeal

In principle, the amount of loss of income that can be gained by a person who dies or has a physical disability due to a tort shall be based on the income of the occupation when the damage was inflicted on the victim at the time of the occurrence of the tort. In cases where it cannot be based, it may be calculated based on the income of the specific function or qualification possessed by the victim or the statistical income which is highly probable to obtain based on the academic background. However, even in such cases, unless the increase or decrease of income is considerably certain, it shall be based on statistical income equivalent to the relevant career at the time of the accident as a matter of principle, and it is inappropriate to base statistical income corresponding to the relevant career at the time of the closing of argument at the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da49024, Feb. 8, 1994; 93Da54286, Feb. 24, 1995; 95Da1361, Sept. 10, 1996).

The court below's decision is just in accordance with the above legal principles, which assessed the monthly average wage of the driver of the motor vehicle for three to four years in the year 1995 on the basic statistical survey report of the wage structure in the Ministry of Labor, based on the career of the driver of the motor vehicle for four years and five years from March 7, 1996, which is the date of the accident in this case, since the above deceased acquired the monthly income of the deceased and the driver's license of ordinary and special (bitr) on October 31, 1991. There is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to argue.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)