(a) The normal method of calculating the actual income, where the operator of a personal business has lost part of his/her labor ability;

(b) In the case of paragraph (a), whether the additional employment cost of a person who can supplement the lost labor ability of the victim is the actual income of the victim immediately;

A. In calculating the actual income where a person operating a personal business has lost his/her ability to work, it is a normal method to determine the income of the business entity based on objective data to recognize the amount of its sales, necessary expenses, capital facilities, etc., and to measure the degree of contribution or value of labor of the business entity and calculate it based on such objective data. If such data are not presented, it is an amount equivalent to remuneration where a person possessing the same degree of academic background, career, and management ability as the victim is employed in consideration of the size, management type, number of employees, business performance, etc. of the business entity, namely, the amount equivalent to remuneration where a person operating a personal business employs a person possessing the same degree of academic background, career, and business ability as the victim, namely,

(b) In the case of paragraph (a), it is not entirely permissible to calculate the cost of employment in the case of hiring a person who can replace the lost working ability of the victim, as the case may be. However, in this case, there should be objective data that the lost working ability of the victim is equal to or greater than that of the employee to be additionally employed, and the additional employment cost should not be the victim’s actual income on the ground that the additional employment cost is necessary to supplement the lost working ability.

Civil Act Article 763 (Article 393)

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Da19846 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2620) 93Da56657 delivered on February 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1084) 92Da27751 delivered on December 21, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 453)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Cheong-si Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na7401 delivered on September 28, 1994

Of the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the plaintiff 1's lost profit, the part concerning the plaintiff 1's lost profit shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiff 1 and the remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal against the plaintiff 1.

If a person operating a personal business has lost part of his/her ability to work, the calculation of the actual income shall be based on objective data to recognize the sales amount, necessary expenses, capital facilities, etc. of the business owner. Among them, it shall be based on the results of which the business owner's contribution or value of labor is measured. If such data are not presented, it shall be based on the amount equivalent to remuneration where a person who has the same degree of academic background, career, management ability, etc. as the victim is employed in consideration of the size, management status, number of employees, management performance, etc. of the business owner, i.e., the amount equivalent to remuneration where a person who employs another person who can substitute the lost ability to work of the victim is assessed by the cost of alternative employment, i.e., the amount calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the loss rate of labor ability of the victim. In this case, it shall not be permitted to calculate the cost of employment where a person is employed instead of the lost ability to work of the victim. However, in this case, there is no objective data to deem the loss of his/her ability to work.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff operating a fish farming business lost 32% of his ability to work due to the instant accident and thereby supplement his lost ability to work, etc., and recognized the fact that the remuneration of the employee of the fish farm farm 700,000 won per month was the amount of 70,000 won per month, and then calculated the lost income by considering the amount of 70,000 won per month as the alternative employment cost for the Plaintiff's operational ability.

The lower court’s determination is based on the premise that the employee’s remuneration, which can substitute the Plaintiff’s lost labor capacity of 32%, is KRW 700,000 per month, and even if examining the record, there is no objective data that can recognize the employee’s lost labor capacity of 32% as equal to or greater than that of the employee’s previous labor ability to be additionally employed as remuneration of KRW 700,000 per month.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which calculated the plaintiff's lost income on the basis of considering the monthly remuneration of 700,000 won for the employees of the additionally employed aquaculture room as the replacement employment cost for 32% of the loss of the plaintiff's operation ability, shall be deemed to have erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating lost income of the individual business operator, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating lost income of the individual business operator

2. The Defendant appealed against Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4, but did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and did not submit the appellate brief.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 1 among the part against the defendant's failure is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal against the above plaintiff and the appeal against the remaining plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively. The costs of appeal against the plaintiff are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)