(a)in calculating lost earnings, the need to take into account the future increase of earnings;

B. Whether the calculation of the present value of the lost earnings that can be obtained in the future by means of Rason's identification method is a violation of judicial precedents (negative)

C. Whether the calculation of lost profit by the calculation method, contrary to the allegations by the parties, is contrary to the principle of pleading (negative)

A. The calculation of lost profit due to a tort should be based on the profit at the time of the loss of labor force, but in a case where there are objective data which could clearly be predicted to increase the profit in the future, the calculation of lost profit in the future should be taken into account. However, as a special damage, the tortfeasor is liable only when he knew or could have known of such profit.

B. In calculating the present value of lost earnings that can be obtained in the future due to a tort, the method of calculating the present value of the lost earnings by the Radman type calculating the present value of the lost earnings by the method of calculating the present value of the lost earnings, not by the Radman type calculation method, as an intermediate interest and deduction method, cannot be deemed as an unlawful violation of judicial precedents.

C. In calculating the current price of lost profit due to a tort, actual assertion such as import, maximum working age, and living expenses to be deducted, but the present assertion on the calculation method (the assertion as to whether it would be based on the heading type or the dynam type) is nothing more than the assessment of the parties, so the court may employ it according to free judgment and it cannot be said that it would be against the principle of pleading, regardless of the parties’ assertion.

A. Article 750(b) of the Civil Act; Article 763(c) of the Civil Act; Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da2418 delivered on November 8, 1977, 79Da579 delivered on May 22, 1979, 79Da629 delivered on June 12, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 79Da1410 delivered on September 25, 1979, 79Da189 delivered on February 26, 1980, 79Da1899 delivered on April 8, 1980, 80Da1430 delivered on September 24, 1980, 80Da1732 delivered on January 13, 1981, 80Da2713, 2714 delivered on August 13, 1981, 82Da1278 delivered on July 16, 1968Da18819 delivered on July 16, 1988.

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

New Interest Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na3918 delivered on February 21, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

In cases where a loss was caused by the loss of or reduction in the labor force due to an illegal act, the calculation of the profit from the lost labor force should be based on the profit at the time of the loss of the labor force, or in cases where there were objective data which could have been predicted to a considerable extent that the profit would have been increased in the future, it should be taken into account as consistent opinion by the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2418, Nov. 8, 197; 79Da629, Jun. 12, 1977; 79Da1410, Sept. 25, 1979; 79Da1810, Feb. 26, 1980; 79Da18138, Apr. 18, 1980; 200Da47819, Apr. 18, 197).

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

In calculating the amount of damages due to the loss of profit that the deceased non-party can obtain in the future, it cannot be deemed that the so-called Radar identification method used to deduct the intermediate interest of 5% per annum from the time of the accident at the time of the accident cannot be necessarily unreasonable from the method of interim interest deduction to the present value at the time of the accident at the time of the accident. Furthermore, since it is obvious that the calculation method according to the method of calculation other than the Radar identification method is not unfair, it cannot be said that there is an error of law in the judgment of the court that calculated the non-party's future profit by the method of calculating the calculation method of the Radar identification method, and as such, it cannot be said that the actual profit can be calculated based on the rule of law on the basic facts such as income, operating years, living expenses to be deducted, and the method of calculating the loss, it cannot be said that the court below's assertion that it is against the present method of calculation of the Radar identification method or the present method of calculating the ladar identification method.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the accident of this case by collecting evidence at the time and confirming the existence of vehicles passing over the crosswalk at night, and neglecting this fact and neglecting it to stand safely, and even though the accident of this case should collapse safely, it did not constitute an error in violation of the Supreme Court precedents, and ultimately, it cannot be employed since it did not go against the court below's determination of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court on the ground of the Supreme Court precedents. Thus, there is no reason to hold the appeal.

4. Ultimately, the appeal of this case is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)