A. Whether a certain point after the time of tort can be the base point for the current computation until the closing of argument in the fact-finding court.

B. Whether to deduct the victim from calculating the amount of compensation for losses in the nature of the excess in cases where the victim's temporary layoff benefits received exceeds the passive amount of damages

(c) Where a victim claims only lost profits after receiving temporary layoff benefits, whether the amount of damages shall be deducted from the amount of temporary layoff benefits;

A. In a case where a party claims compensation for lost losses as of any time after the time of tort until the closing of argument at the fact-finding court, and then claims compensation for the amount of income loss calculated by deducting the interim interest accrued up to that time, this does not exceed the original method of compensation for damages, or as long as it is inconsistent with or inconsistent with this, it may be permissible to allow the compensation for damages. However, in such a case, additional claim for damages for delay prior to that time is not permissible.

B. In the event of an accident caused by an employer’s tort, deducting the amount of benefits from the amount of compensation for temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits already received pursuant to the Labor Standards Act or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, from the amount of compensation for the lost benefits, can only be made between the same nature of the damage and mutually complementary relationship. Thus, even if the amount of compensation for temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits received by the victim exceeds the passive amount of damages recognized by the court, it is not necessary to deduct the excess from calculating

(c)Temporary layoff benefits shall be commensurate with the lost interests during the period of suspension, so the amount of temporary layoff benefits shall be deducted only from the amount of damages equivalent to the lost interests during the period of suspension.

(a)Article 763(b) of the Civil Code; (c) Articles 9-4, 9-5, and 11(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Da11776 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2217), Supreme Court Decision 93Da10651 delivered on September 10, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2730)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea Export Industry Corporation

Busan District Court Decision 93Na477 delivered on June 10, 1993

Of the part against Plaintiff 1’s property damage, the part of the judgment below as to KRW 7,962,250 and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The remaining plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the same plaintiffs.

First, we examine the legality of the appeal by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 ex officio.

According to the records, only the above plaintiffs claim consolation money, and they appealed from the first instance court that they won 1,50,000 won, 300,000 won, and 300,000 won, respectively, and the damages for delay, but they received a judgment dismissing the appeal at the lower court. However, the above plaintiffs filed an appeal against the above plaintiffs. According to the petition of appeal submitted by the plaintiffs, it is clear that "the plaintiff is dissatisfied with 7,962,250 won of the compensation for suspension of business among the items entered in the order," and it is affixed only to the personal guidance.

Thus, the above plaintiffs shall not be deemed unlawful since they filed an appeal without any objection to the judgment of the court below.

We examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, the plaintiff 1 was presumed to have suffered losses of KRW 58,580 every month for 17 months from October 30, 1990 to July 30, 200 with respect to losses of the daily income of the same plaintiff on the second 3rd 5th 6th 6th 7th 1993. The plaintiff 2th 3th 1st 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 66th 6th 6th 196th 3th 6th 196th 3th 6th 6th 6th 6th 196th 6th 3th 196th 3th 196th 16th 196th 3th 206th 20 196th 2086 206th 20686th 2086.

2. The claim for damages due to an illegal act occurs and the due date comes. Thus, in principle, the current price of the illegal act shall be the base date for calculating the current price of the damages even in the case of the passive and active damages that may occur in the future, and the amount calculated by deducting the interim interest from the time of the occurrence of the damages in the future, with additional payment damages from the time of the illegal act. However, the claim shall not be limited to the same method. If the time of the occurrence of damages has elapsed before the closure of arguments at the fact-finding court, it shall be allowed to claim the total amount of damages and the damages for delay after the date of the occurrence of damages. In this case, even if the party claims for damages based on the value of the lost income by deducting the interim interest from the time of the illegal act until the time of the closure of arguments at the fact-finding court, as seen in this case, the claim for damages for the previous damages shall not be allowed unless it exceeds the above original method or it conflicts with it (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da37790, Dec. 37, 199).

3. Since damages are aimed at compensating for damages, it is not permissible to have the victim gain more benefits than the actual damage because it goes against the intent of compensation for damages. Therefore, if the victim gains profits from the same cause as the victim suffered damages, such benefits should be deducted.

However, in the event of a disaster caused by an employer's illegal act, the amount of temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits already received under the Labor Standards Act or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act can be deducted from the amount of compensation for the lost benefits. Thus, even if the amount of temporary layoff benefits or disability benefits received by the victim exceeds the passive amount of damages recognized by the court, it shall not be deducted in calculating the amount of compensation for damages whose nature is different (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da11776, Jul. 23, 1991). Since the amount of temporary layoff benefits is corresponding to the lost benefits during the business suspension period, the amount of temporary layoff benefits shall be deducted from the amount of damages equivalent to the lost benefits during the business suspension period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da10651, Sept. 10, 1993). Therefore, in this case, if the victim claims only the amount equivalent to the lost benefits after the period of temporary layoff benefits received, it shall not be related to the lost benefits.

4. If so, the court below did not review any content of the amount of temporary layoff benefits paid to the same plaintiff, nor did it calculate the current amount of temporary layoff benefits as of October 30, 1990, including the amount of actual profit damage before July 31, 1992, which was not claimed by the same plaintiff, and ordered the payment of the balance of temporary layoff benefits after deducting the amount of temporary layoff benefits. This is not only against the principle of disposition right but also against the law of the deduction of the amount of temporary layoff benefits.

Therefore, there are reasons to the extent of this issue.

Therefore, among the part against the plaintiff 1's loss, the part which deducts 7,962,250 won from compensation for suspension of work among property damages against the same plaintiff and the part concerning compensation for delay thereof shall be reversed and remanded. The remaining plaintiffs' appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the same plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)