(a) Method for calculating the lost profit of a victim in a damage compensation case caused by a tort;

B. Whether profit to be increased should also be considered in cases where it is clearly predicted that the victim who lost his/her ability to work due to physical disability will increase the future profit in calculating the lost profit (affirmative), and whether the loss equivalent to the lost profit calculated based on the profit to be increased is ordinary loss (affirmative)

A. In a tort compensation case, the victim’s lost profit can be assessed on the basis of the victim’s income at the time of the accident and can be assessed on the basis of estimated income. Since the computation of lost profit is predicted of uncertain future facts, it is sufficient to calculate reasonable and objective expectation profit based on the specific circumstances present in the case in question, and only one can be assessed on the basis of reasonable calculation method.

B. In cases where calculating the lost profit of a victim who lost labor ability due to a tort, in principle, should be based on the profit at the time of the accident (the time of the loss of labor capacity). However, in cases where there are objective data which can be predicted sufficiently enough to increase the lost profit, the profit to be increased in the future shall also be considered in calculating the lost profit. The loss equivalent to the lost profit calculated based on the profit to be increased in the future corresponds to the ordinary loss that is ordinarily recognized by the tort in question as being caused by the tort.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4093,4109 Decided December 12, 1989 (Gong1990,248) (Gong1990,1037) decided April 10, 1990 (Gong1990,1037) (Gong1990,1130), Supreme Court Decision 90Da16900 Decided February 8, 1991 (Gong191,961), Supreme Court Decision 91Da10381 Decided May 28, 1991 (Gong191,1768).

Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Young-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na55430 delivered on February 27, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding passive damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

1. In tort compensation cases, the victim's lost profit can be assessed on the basis of the victim's income at the time of the accident and estimated income can be assessed. Since the calculation of lost profit is predicted of an uncertain future fact, it is sufficient to calculate reasonable and objective expectation profit based on the present circumstances in the case concerned, and only one party can be assessed on the basis of the present circumstances. (See Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1580 delivered on March 22, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4093,4109 delivered on December 12, 198; Supreme Court Decision 88Meu21210 delivered on April 10, 199; Supreme Court Decision 8Da19250 delivered on April 24, 190; Supreme Court Decision 88Da19255 delivered on April 24, 190; Supreme Court Decision 88Da19250 delivered on the basis of the average profits of the non-party's stores' stores and its products are not justified.

2. The lower court calculated the lost profit of the Plaintiff due to the instant traffic accident based on the average income level of the male retail workers (number 620) who are similar to the Plaintiff’s occupation in the report on the survey of actual wages by occupation in 1987, which was at the time of the accident.

However, in case of calculating the lost profit of a victim who lost labor ability due to a traffic accident, in principle, it shall be based on the profit at the time of the accident (the time of the loss of labor ability). However, if there are objective data which can be predicted to a considerable extent to increase the lost profit in the future, the profit to be increased in the future shall also be considered. As such, the loss equivalent to the lost profit calculated based on the profit to be increased in the future corresponds to the ordinary loss which is recognized as ordinarily arising from the pertinent tort in terms of social concept (see Supreme Court Decision 8Da6761, Dec. 26, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Da16900, Feb. 8, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da10381, May 28, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da2694, Aug. 9, 191; Supreme Court Decision 94Da2700, Feb. 29, 1998).

Thus, the court below calculated the plaintiff's lost profit loss based on the above increased average income level in calculating the lost profit loss after 1989. However, the court below calculated the plaintiff's lost profit loss based on the average income level at the time of 1987 until the plaintiff reaches the age of 60. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's lost loss among the plaintiff's lost loss part of the judgment of the court below is not deemed to be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of lost profit loss, and it is clear that such an error has affected the judgment. The argument is with merit.

For the above reasons, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.