The case reversing the judgment of the court below which applied the realization rate of a short-term pension exceeding 240 when deducting an intermediate interest on a monthly basis pursuant to the calculation method of a premium.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which applied a simple pension realization rate exceeding 240 in the course of calculating a certain period of time during the continued multiple stages of revenue, when deducting interim interest on a monthly basis pursuant to the Fmanmanial Calculation Act.

Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Chang Enterprise Co., Ltd. (Attorneys O Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na10442 delivered on December 5, 1995

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding lost income damages is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where an intermediate interest is deducted pursuant to the Fmanmanial Calculation Act, if the interim interest deduction period exceeds 414 months, and if the realization rate of a short-term pension on the monthly numerical value table exceeds 240 months, if the present price is calculated by applying it as it is, it would be more than the amount of losses that the present amount would be paid to the victim, thereby receiving excessive compensation. Thus, in order to prevent this, the Supreme Court has maintained that 240 shall apply both to the short-term pension on the numerical value table regardless of the present rate of the short-term pension on the numerical value table (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da15871, Jul. 10, 1992; 90Da15013, Jun. 14, 1991; 86Meu109, Apr. 14, 1987).

(5) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below shall calculate the amount of lost income which a plaintiff, who was born on September 1, 1971, was incurred on August 12, 1993 】 (1) for eight months from August 12, 1993 to April 12, 1994: 69,200 (monthly income) ¡¿ 1 ¡¿ 5,491,097; 2.3.06.3 months from April 13, 1994 to December 12, 1995 】 (4.3 months from the date on which he/she lost his/her capacity: 726,700 (increased income) 】 (3.9 years from the date on which he/she lost his/her capacity) 】 (4.3 months from the date on which he/she lost his/her capacity): 5 months until 197.3 months from the date on which he/she lost his/her capacity: 97.26 months from the date on which he/she lost 194.3 months.3 months.5 months.

However, as in the instant case, in a case where the victim may obtain lost income while continuously operating from the accident to the operation period (it does not include the period during which net profit cannot be obtained) as in the judgment of the court below, such as the case where the interim interest is deducted, and where the present price is calculated by applying the principle of short-term pension on the monthly numerical value table 25.2032, which exceeds 240, as it is, when calculating the present price, it is higher than the amount of monthly loss the victim would suffer excessive compensation. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous because it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of damages, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal, the Defendant did not state in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to lost income damages is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)