Calculation of a promotion and actual benefits under the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations;

In light of Articles 8, 9, and 11 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, all public officials shall, as a matter of principle, raise a salary every year and there are grounds for restrictions on disciplinary action, dismissal from position, temporary retirement, etc., only in exceptional cases. Thus, there is sufficient objective probability that the Plaintiff’s loss caused by the above provisions may be increased, and this should be objectively known to the extent that the above provisions were promulgated. In other words, in calculating the lost profit of local public officials, it should be based on the amount to be increased every year according to the above provisions of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations unless it is proved that there is an exceptional reason for the restriction on the above promotion.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

New Air Transportation Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na1419 delivered on September 28, 1983

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs, excluding the portions of comparative negligence in the amount of passive damage (daily wages and retirement allowances), shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and their part of the appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs are examined (the supplementary appellate brief to the extent of supplement).

1. In calculating the amount of the lost profit of the deceased Nonparty, the lower court determined that the retirement age reaches 55 years of age as a local administrative assistant of class 7 of class 8 at the time of the accident, and calculated the above lost profit based on the amount of remuneration at the time of the accident, and determined according to the remuneration regulations for local public officials, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of the lost profit should be calculated based on the amount of salary at the time of the accident, in addition to the amount of the remuneration at the time of the accident, the amount of the lost profit due to the increase in the number of days of the accident is a special damage, and there is no evidence that the perpetrator predicted or could have predicted it at the time of the accident, and even according to Article 11 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, if the work performance rating falls under the lowest class of class 7, it shall not be deemed that there is a ground for restriction on the promotion of a salary, such as

However, in cases where profits anticipated due to illegal acts are lost, compensation for lost profits shall be based on the profits at the time of the accident, or where objective materials exist that increase in the profit from the future, it shall be based on the increased amount in calculating the profit from the future. In Articles 8 and 9 of the Local Public Officials Remuneration Regulations, the period required for the promotion of a salary class among public officials shall be one year, and the promotion of a salary shall be one year, and Article 11 of the same Regulations provides for the restriction on the promotion of a salary class in four cases, including disciplinary action, removal from position, and temporary retirement, unless there are other circumstances, it shall be deemed that all public officials cannot, in principle, raise a salary every year, unless there are grounds for restriction on the promotion of a salary class falling under the above Article 11, unless there are special reasons for restriction on the promotion of a salary class falling under the above Article 11, and it shall be deemed that there is sufficient objective probability that the plaintiff's losses can be increased due to the promotion of a salary class falling under the above provisions, and this constitutes an objective reason for the court below's calculation of a salary increase in the above.

2. The court below held that, based on macroficial evidence, the deceased non-party is also a zone where the accident points are closed down, but the vehicles coming from the opposite direction are entering such a zone to the opposite direction due to the fact that the vehicle should reduce the speed and properly look at the front and the right side of the vehicle without driver's license, which is negligent in the fact that the accident occurred rapidly and continuously without driver's license, and this constitutes 9% of the amount of damages, at the time of the accident at the present price (36,606,935 + 36,935,92 + 198,943 Won) calculated on the basis of the amount of remuneration at the time of the accident at the time of the accident (wages and retirement allowances). According to the records, the court below's above measures are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to offsetting negligence.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs except the comparative negligence portion from the passive amount of damages against the deceased non-party is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The appeal against the comparative negligence portion is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal against the part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)