Whether there is an empirical rule that 1/3 of the income is spent for living expenses, regardless of the volume of the income;

The cost of living refers to the cost required for a person to lead a social life, and it shall be deemed that the amount required for each period is different depending on the different amount of income, and the specific amount required for living cost is ultimately to be recognized by evidence as an issue of fact-finding, and there is an empirical rule that the amount of 1/3 of the income is required as the cost of living regardless of the different amount of income.

Article 763 (Civil Act Article 393 (Article 393)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 4548, Dec. 3, 1988) (Law No. 450, Aug. 13, 1991; Law No. 4548, Feb. 239, 200)

Kim Man-o et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Han-il Transportation Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Lee Byung-won, Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 92Na8742 delivered on May 21, 1993

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs on lost income shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and defendant Han-il Transportation Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant Il-il Transportation Attorney and the ground of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant company's assertion that the non-party 2 was not negligent at the time of the accident, and that the accident points are at night at the time of the accident, and the accident points are at least 50 km, and the non-party 1's driver's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's first line near the central line is shocked by the left side of the above cargo vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's first line, and the non-party 2 was driving the above passenger vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's driver's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's first line with the defendant company's company's first line, and it was found that the non-party 2's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's vehicle's first line was at least 130 km.

In comparison with the records, we affirm that the above accident circumstance of the court below and the finding of the negligence by Nonparty 2 and the degree of consideration of the negligence of the deceased are just. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on offsetting negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore all arguments are without merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiffs' attorney

In calculating the monthly average income by recognizing the fact that the above deceased worked for the non-party company as indicated in the judgment of the court below and received a wide gap in one year prior to the accident of this case, it is acceptable to recognize the total income of one year prior to the accident as equally divided amount. There is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit or by violating the rules of evidence, and therefore, the argument

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiffs' attorney

The lower court determined that the fact that the amount of 1/3 of the revenues was obviously obvious in light of the empirical rule due to the living cost of the deceased.

However, the cost of living refers to the cost required for a person to lead a social life, and it should be deemed that the amount required for each term is different depending on the different revenues, and the specific cost of living should be acknowledged by evidence as a matter of fact-finding (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu565, Sept. 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 91Da8890, Aug. 13, 1991). It cannot be said that there is an empirical rule that 1/3 of its revenues are required to lead a living cost regardless of the difference of revenues, as in the judgment of the court below. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the rule of experience, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no ground to points out this issue.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs regarding the lost income is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and the appeal by the defendant Han-il is dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the dismissed appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)