Whether a person who has lost his/her ability to work is entitled to claim the lost profit by based on the ordinary wages which are more than the direct public income.

In a case where the amount of general labor wages exceeds the amount of profit earned by a person who is directly engaged in a factory, etc., it is highly probable that he will engage in general labor. Therefore, barring any other circumstances, it is justifiable to select the general labor wages at the time of closing argument at the large amount of the closing of argument and calculate the amount of actual labor based on it.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da1284 Decided October 14, 1969

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na489 delivered on September 27, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where calculating the lost profit of the victim who lost the labor force by causing physical disability due to the tort, in principle, the basis for the victim's profit at the time of the loss of the labor force is the same as the theory of lawsuit, but there is objective data which is considerably certain to increase the profit in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2418, Nov. 18, 197; 76Da2418, Oct. 14, 196; 2000). Meanwhile, the fact that the ordinary wage is being increased is known, and it is highly probable that the ordinary wage would be engaged in ordinary labor if the average wage is much more than the profit acquired by the worker in the factory, etc., barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to calculate the lost profit with the intention that the ordinary wage at the time of the loss of the labor force exceeds the profit gained by the reality at the time of the loss of the labor force at the time of the loss of the labor force, and it is reasonable to calculate the lost profit by the plaintiff's loss of the labor force at the time of 200 days.

In this case, there is no theory that the general daily wage would be the basis for calculating the lost loss if the plaintiff did not have a suspension from office at the time of loss of the labor force, and if so, it would be unreasonable for the plaintiff to receive compensation for less than the general wage because the plaintiff had a profit from Purs. Therefore, there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. According to the records, the plaintiff's negligence in this case is deemed to be 1:3 compared to the defendant in light of the records, and the plaintiff's negligence in this case is deemed to be justifiable in light of the above, and the plaintiff's negligence in this case cannot be adopted.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit and is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. With respect to the calculation of the lost profit as to the 1st of the above statements, the opinion of the participating judges is delivered with the assent of all the Justices except for the dissenting opinions such as the Rules of the Supreme Court, the Round of the Justice of the Supreme Court, the Kim Yong-chul of the Justice of the Supreme Court, the assistant members of the Supreme Court, and the Justice

Justices Lee Young-pop (Presiding Justice) Ha Young-gu (Presiding Justice) Jin-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak-Jak Kim Jong-Jk-Jak

The minority opinions of the Supreme Court Judge Lee Il-il, Dro-Jon, Kim Yong-Jon, Tae Tae-won, and Saples.

In case of infringement on human life or body, it is common example to assess and compute the ability of the victim to obtain goods. Thus, if the victim has been engaged in a certain occupation, the ability to obtain goods should be the basis for calculating the profit that can be obtained or obtained by the victim. However, if the victim has no certain occupation, it should be the basis for calculating the profit that can be obtained or obtained by the victim. However, unless there is no intention to engage in labor, it shall be deemed to be engaged in at least in general daily work, barring special circumstances.

Therefore, in the case of this case where the plaintiff, who is the victim, was making a profit of KRW 79,200 of the number of months from the defendant's factory at the time of cutting off the four of the number of units, if there are objective circumstances to increase the profit or the future profit, it is not necessary to set the profit to be used as the calculation basis for lost damage.

The above majority theory is that when the daily wage is larger than the income earned from food, it is probable that it will be engaged in the general labor, it shall be based on the calculation basis of the labor wage. However, it is difficult to understand where there is a ground that it is possible to transfer the daily wage to the general daily labor.

Along with the fact that changing a worker into a place where economic loss is high, it is a common example that the plaintiff's daily wages are higher than the current earnings, not for dogmatic or temporary work, so it is difficult to see that the fixed earnings earned from the ordinary daily work requires technology at a certain workplace, and transfer to daily work. Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff cannot take into account the special situation that the worker would be engaged in daily work even if there was no accident, it should be based on the calculation of actual damages, but rather for protecting the victim, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the measures for actual daily wages calculated based on the general daily wages which do not have any relation with the present employment.

The majority opinion of maintaining the original city is against the general labor wage in the absence of any suspension from office for the plaintiff at the time of this accident, but if the plaintiff was absent from office at the time of the accident, there is no standard to evaluate the ability to acquire goods, and therefore, if there is no physical disability, it is deemed that at least a person engaged in daily work is engaged in the general daily work and the basis for calculating the wage is reasonable in terms of the concept of fairness in compensation for damages. However, as the result of the accident, the general theory that the ordinary daily work wage is more likely to be reasonable in terms of fair and fair, and it is unreasonable to draw up the general theory that the actual profit is visible and the large amount of daily wage is to be followed.