Calculation of lost income of a person engaged in a garbage disposal business without permission as prescribed by the Littering Act;

If the victim has been engaged in the garbage disposal business without permission of the competent market under the Littering Act at the time of the accident, this is an illegal act, and the profit therefrom can not be the basis for the passive damage calculation.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 13 and 20 of the Littering Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da1650 Delivered on February 14, 1978

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Attorney Park Ho-si et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 80Na404 delivered on June 26, 1980

Of the original judgment, the part ordering the Defendant to pay KRW 8,888,800 to Plaintiff 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

All remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of the above appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, if the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff 1 for the damages caused by this accident, the court of first instance is not 250,000 won per month for the profit of collecting garbage from a general household as stated in its reasoning, and as such, the damages suffered by the plaintiff cannot be obtained in the future, as stated in its reasoning, 10,000 won per annum from 24,238,878 under the Franchising Calculation Act, and 10,000 won per annum of 1,11,200 won per annum received from the plaintiff, and 8,88,800 won cannot be viewed as a passive damages caused by the defendant's disposal of garbage without permission of the court of first instance. According to the above reasoning, the court below's determination that the defendant's act of collecting and transporting garbage without permission of the court of first instance is 0,000 won or less per annum of the above law, and thus, the defendant's act of collecting garbage can not be punished without permission of the above law.

Next, among the defendant's appeal, the remaining parts against the above plaintiff 1 and the appeal against the remaining plaintiffs (each part of consolation money) shall not be dismissed in accordance with Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act, since there is no statement in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, from among the part against the defendant in the original judgment, the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 8,88,800 won of the above passive damage, to the defendant, is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court which is the original judgment for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiff and the remaining appeals against the plaintiff are all dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissal of the above appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)