(a) The calculation of the lost profit of an engineer who has lost the ability to work for 70 percent shall deduct the balance of the ordinary labor revenue of 30 percent from the amount which can be earned as an engineer; and

B. The State’s compensation under the Public Officials Pension Act is paid to public officials under the social compensation system for public officials, and there is no relation to the amount of damages to be paid due to a third party’s illegal act.

A. The State’s compensation paid pursuant to this Act is a public official’s social security system, and there is no relation to the amount of damages payable for a third party’s tort.

(b) The calculation of the lost profit of an engineer who has lost 70 percent labor ability shall deduct the remainder of 30% general labor revenue from the amount which can be earned as an engineer.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 33 of the Public Officials Pension Act

Plaintiff 1 and 15 others (Attorney Go Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jin Chemical Industry Company

Daegu High Court Decision 68Na92 delivered on March 5, 1969

Among the original judgment, the part of the claim for damages against the plaintiff's property among the original judgment is reversed, and the case concerning that part is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The plaintiffs and the defendant's appeals regarding the claim of consolation money and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the rest of the plaintiffs and the defendant with the exception of the part concerning the plaintiff's permission.

(1) We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney.

No. 1, while the court below found that the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho and Dong-do operated an automobile with a speed of 15 minutes per hour at a speed of 70 km, which is the speed of the accident location at the time of the accident location, even though the oil truck drivened by the non-party Kim Jong-tae appeared to go on the road front of about 400 meters from the accident location at the point of this accident, the above truck is believed to be stopped at the crossing, and it is difficult to say that the above truck would continue to stop at the crossing, and even if it did not fulfill its duty of care, such as making a prompt stop at a speed of about 20 meters, but making a stop at the front of about 20 meters, it cannot be viewed as a mistake in fact finding, and therefore, the court below cannot accept the above judgment of the court below on the premise that it cannot be accepted at any time when crossing the accident under the premise that it does not meet the plaintiff's duty of blocking the engine on the track, even if it does not have any other duty of blocking it.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below calculated the amount equivalent to 70 percent of earnings as an engineer on the ground that 70 percent of earnings from this case was reduced from this case's injury. However, in the case of calculating the amount of damages on the premise that the above plaintiff was unable to perform his duties as an engineer due to an accident in this case, if he lost 70 percent of his ability to work as an engineer, then the amount of profits after retirement can be 30 percent of the general labor wages. Thus, in the case of calculating the amount of damages, if the above plaintiff lost 70 percent of his ability to work as an engineer due to the accident in this case, profits after retirement shall be 30 percent of the general labor wages. Therefore, even though the amount of profits which the above general labor wages 30 percent should be reduced from the amount of profits which the plaintiff 2 could have accrued from the accident in this case as an engineer, the original judgment calculated as lost 70 percent of earnings as an engineer shall not be reversed. Therefore, this part of the original judgment shall not be reversed.

(2) The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the first point and the reasoning of the judgment, the court below recognized the fact that the cause of the accident at the time when the original judgment was based on lawful evidence and thereby recognized the non-party Kim Jong-man's negligence, who is the defendant's employee. Even if the records were recorded, it cannot be said that the defendant company is not liable for the damage compensation of this case as the victim of the accident, and it is clear that the defendant company would compete with the negligence of the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho and Dong-ho in the accident at the time of the original judgment, and therefore, it should not be accepted.

According to the second and second reasons, in calculating the amount of damages, the income tax withheld under the Income Tax Act should be deducted from the income accrued in calculating the amount of damages. However, the court below's judgment shall not be reversed because it does not contain any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the calculation of the amount of damages in this point. The reasons are that the court below's judgment is justified.

According to the third point and the reasoning of the original judgment, Plaintiff 1 determined that Plaintiff 2 received KRW 70,00 from the State as compensation under the Public Officials Pension Act, and that this would be appropriated for the expenses for hospitalized treatment after the injury other than the expenses for treatment claimed by the above plaintiffs in this case. Thus, it cannot be different from the calculation of the property damages in the judgment of the original judgment, and that this compensation was paid to public officials based on the social security system for public officials. Accordingly, the above judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be said that the compensation paid by public officials under the Public Officials Pension Act should be deducted from the amount of damages suffered by the above plaintiffs.

It is clear that the court below recognized the status relationship between the plaintiff Kim Byung-ho, Dong Dong-ho and other plaintiffs who were injured due to the accident in this case by legitimate evidence, and calculated the duty to pay consolation money and its amount in consideration of all the circumstances of the accident in this case in the original judgment, the status of the property of the defendant, etc., the status of the property of the defendant, etc., the family situation of the plaintiff et al., and other various circumstances shown in the pleadings. As such, the court below did not err in the incomplete hearing in the original judgment or in the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the part concerning the claim for damages to the plaintiff's property damage among the original judgment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. The part concerning the claim for consolation money and the remaining plaintiffs' appeals are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party (excluding plaintiff Hak-do). It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices of the Supreme Court Do-dong (Presiding Judge) Do-dong (Presiding Justice)