(a) The criteria for calculating lost profit damage in cases where a report on the survey of actual wages by occupation is submitted based on the point of time close to the date of closing argument;

(b) The driver of a motor vehicle who intends to drive the one-way road into the opposite lane in order to avoid any obstacle on the road while driving the road;

A. In principle, lost profit damage suffered by a victim of a tort shall be calculated based on the amount of revenue at the time of the occurrence of the damage. However, if the income which forms the basis of lost profit has been increased between the time of closing argument of the fact-finding court, then the lost profit damage thereafter shall be calculated based on the income nearest at the time of closing argument of the fact-finding court. Such damage constitutes ordinary damages caused by tort.

나. 편도 1차선의 도로를 주행중 도로상의 장애물을 피하기 위하여 반대차선을 침범해야 할 필요가 있는 경우에 운전자는 전방을 잘 살펴 마주오는 차량이 있는지 여부를 확인해야 함은 물론 그 장소가 비록 추월이 금지된 곳이라 하더라도 만약의 경우에 대비하여 후사경을 통한 후방의 교통상황도 충분히 살펴 깜박이등을 켜고 서행하면서 진입하여야 할 주의의무가 있다.

A. Article 763 of the Civil Act (Article 393); Article 750 of the Civil Act; Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da10381 delivered on May 28, 1991 (Gong1991, 1768), 92Da14526 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong1993,101). Supreme Court Decision 87Da1130 delivered on October 11, 198 (Gong198,1402 delivered on December 24, 1991) (Gong192Da21494 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong192,1057)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 plaintiffs, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Defendant-Appellant et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na5212 delivered on June 5, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney

A. The lower court calculated the Plaintiff’s lost profit on June 13, 1990 based on the average income level of total male retail workers similar to the above deceased’s occupation in the report on the survey of actual wages by occupation in 1989, when calculating the lost profit loss incurred by the deceased Nonparty due to the instant traffic accident occurred on June 13, 199.

B. However, in principle, the lost profit damage suffered by the victim who died due to a tort shall be calculated based on the amount of revenue at the time of the tort. However, if the income which forms the basis of lost profit has increased between the time of closing argument of the fact-finding court, then it shall be calculated based on the income nearest at the time of closing argument of the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da10381, May 28, 1991). Accordingly, in this case, the plaintiffs submitted a report on the actual wage status survey by occupation in the first instance court in the year 1989 and the report on the actual wage status survey by occupation in the court below in the year 190. According to the above fact-finding report by occupation, the average income amount of male retail workers who have worked for ten or more years such as the above deceased shall be the average monthly income amount of 884,217 won as recognized by the court below at the time of closing argument in the court below, the average income amount of the above deceased worker shall be 190Da2371374,20.

C. Thus, the court below calculated the lost profit loss of the deceased based on the above increased average income level in calculating the lost profit loss of the above deceased (the plaintiff's attorney filed a claim for monthly income based on the report on the survey of actual wages by occupation in the year 190 from January 31, 192 stated on the second date for pleading 2 of the court below) and the average income level as of January 1989. The court below calculated the lost profit loss of the deceased. As to this part of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court below, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation of lost profit loss, and since it is obvious that it affected the judgment, there is a ground for appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney pointing this out.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence, the court below rejected the above-mentioned vehicle's (number 1 omitted) on June 13, 1990, by allowing the above-mentioned vehicle to stop on the right-hand side of the above-mentioned vehicle without any fault by allowing the above-mentioned vehicle to stop on the front of the above-mentioned vehicle without any fault, and by allowing the above-mentioned vehicle to stop on the right-hand side of the above-mentioned vehicle without any fault. However, the above-mentioned vehicle to stop on the right-hand side of the road without any collision by allowing the above-mentioned vehicle to stop on the front of the above-mentioned vehicle without any collision with the traffic of the 60 km straight line at the time of restriction on its front line. However, the court below found the above-mentioned vehicle to stop on the right-hand side of the road without any collision between the two-way vehicle and the above-mentioned vehicle.

나. 원심의 위 판시는 마치 위 승합차가 정차중인 화물차 옆을 이미 지나고 있는데도 피고가 무모하게 이를 추월하기 시작하였다는 상황을 전제로 한 것이나, 이는 피고가 자신의 승용차를 추월한 위 승합차를 다시 추월하기 위하여 반대차선으로 진입하여 빠른 속력으로 진행하는 도중 위 승합차가 전방의 화물차를 피하기 위하여 중앙선을 침범하여 들어 왔다는 위 가.항 전단의 사실인정과도 배치되는 것이고, 기록상 그와 같이 볼 자료도 발견할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 {오히려 원심이 채택한 을 제2호증의 7(피의자신문조서)의 기재에 의하면, 피고가 추월을 시작하여 위 승합차를 5m 이상 앞서 나가는데 위 승합차가 전방의 화물차를 피하기 위하여 중앙선을 넘어 피고쪽으로 들어 왔다는 것이다}, 편도 1차선의 도로를 주행 중 도로상의 장애물을 피하기 위하여 반대차선을 침범해야 할 필요가 있는 경우에 운전자는 전방을 잘 살펴 마주오는 차량이 있는지 여부를 확인해야 함은 물론 그 장소가 비록 추월이 금지된 곳이라 하더라도 만약의 경우에 대비하여 후사경을 통한 후방의 교통상황도 충분히 살펴 깜박이등을 켜고 서행하면서 진입하여야 할 주의의무가 있다 할 것인 바, 원심이 채택한 증거들과 이 사건 사고의 충돌부위를 미루어 보면 위 소외인은 자신의 후방에서 피고의 승용차가 추월을 시작한 것을 제대로 살피지 못한 채 전방 우측의 화물차를 피한다는 생각만으로 피고가 과속으로 진행해 오고 있는 반대차선으로 함부로 진입해 들어 가다가 위와 같은 충돌사고를 면치 못하게 된 사실을 알 수가 있어 위 사고는 전방의 교통상황을 제대로 판단하지 못한 채 추월금지구역에서 함부로 과속을 하면서 추월을 한 피고의 주된 잘못으로 인하여 발생한 것임은 부인할 수 없다고 하더라도, 소외인의 위와 같은 잘못도 위 사고발생에 적지않이 개입되어 있다고 봄이 상당하다 할 것인데도 (소외인 자신도 위 사고 직전에 추월금지구역에서 피고의 승용차를 추월한 바 있으므로 다른 차량도 그와 같이 추월을 시도할 수 있다는 것을 충분히 예견할 수 있었다고 볼 것이다), 원심이 그 설시의 이유로 피고의 과실상계주장을 배척한 데에는 이유모순이나 이유불비 또는 앞에서 본 바와 같은 상황하에서의 운전자의 주의의무에 관한 법리오해로 인하여 판결에 영향을 미친 잘못이 있다 할 것이니, 이 점을 지적하는 피고의 상고논지도 이유가 있다.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)