(a) The case affirming the court below's measure that held that the victim's negligence with 10% of the 10% of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of

(b) The case affirming the decision of the court below that calculated the lost profits of the victim who received the scholarship as the result of his/her academic achievements achieved after entering the medical college and the first year of his/her study, based on the ordinary urban daily wage;

(c) The method of calculating the net profit in cases where the numerical value of a single-age pension for the total period does not exceed 240, but the victim cannot obtain the net profit, in deducting intermediary interest pursuant to the method of computing the net profit.

(a) The case affirming the court below's measure that held that the victim's negligence with 10% of the 10% of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of

B. Even if the victim (the deceased) who attended the first year in the medical college as a part of the main department of the medical college was admitted to the medical college and received the scholarship with the excellent academic performance, and the passing rate of the doctor's country notification by the graduate of the medical college is high, it cannot be said that the victim can engage in the work as a doctor after graduating from the medical college more than 3 years, passed the public notice by the doctor's state notification, and acquired the qualification for doctor's license. Thus, the court below is justified in calculating the lost profit of the victim based on the general urban wage.

C. When calculating the present price by applying the numerical value of a short-term pension which can be operated by the relationship in which the victim could not obtain net profit even if the total available period exceeds 414 months and the numerical value of the present price exceeds 240, the deducted result should be left if the deducted result does not exceed 240 if the numerical value does not exceed 240 if the deducted result is calculated by applying the numerical value of the short-term pension equivalent to the period during which the victim could not obtain net profit.

A. Articles 763 and 396(b) of the Civil Act. Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 77Da1976 delivered on February 28, 1978 (Gong1978, 10705) (Gong1987, 1200). Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1759 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 421) (Gong1988, 1114) Decided June 27, 1989

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Yong-han, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 90Na5435 delivered on April 19, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that it is reasonable to take about about 10 percent of the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant on the ground that the deceased non-party 1, who was based on the evidence of this case, was negligent in not using the safety appearance even after he was on board the Obaba, which was found in the circumstances of this case, and caused the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to comparative negligence or by misapprehending the

With respect to the second ground:

Although the above deceased was enrolled in the first grade of the medical college and was enrolled in the first grade of the medical college, and was awarded a scholarship with excellent academic achievements, and passed a national notice of the doctor's status by the graduate of the medical college alone, it cannot be said that it would be considerably certain that the above deceased would be able to be engaged as a doctor after graduating from the medical college that remains more than three years after the above deceased's graduation, passed the public notice of the doctor's status, and acquired the qualification for doctor's qualification. Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim on this purport and calculated the lost profit based on the ordinary urban wage of the adult female, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles on the calculation of lost profit, failure to exercise the right to know, and incomplete trial.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

With respect to No. 1:

In light of the records, the court below did not have any negligence on the part of the non-party 2, who was on board the deceased after Oralab, and did not have any errors in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting negligence.

With respect to the second ground:

If the present price is calculated by applying the numerical value calculated by deducting the present price from the present price rate of a short-term pension for the total period, which can be operated by the relationship in which the victim could not obtain net profit, even if the present price exceeds 414 months and the present price is more than 240 months, it shall not exceed 240 days if the deducted numerical value does not exceed 240 days (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu1759, Feb. 10, 1987). Accordingly, the court below is just in calculating the lost profit of the deceased, and there is no violation of law as otherwise pointed out.

With respect to the third point:

In light of the records, the court below is just and correct to consider adult women's general urban daily wage as the basis of the monthly market price (Evidence A No. 16, 17) of the Korea Construction Association in calculating the lost income of the above deceased, and there is no error of law that misleads the criteria for calculating the lost income. All of the arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)