Interpretation of the claim for loss of corporate income on the ground of the loss of labor capacity;

In business (corporate) income, loss caused by reduction of income is not necessarily determined to be proportional to the degree of loss of management's labor ability, and the specific amount of reduction of income caused by accident should be determined, which is not clear statement about the member's seat on the reduction of business income from the time after the accident occurred to the present, and there is no proof to do so. Therefore, the argument about the above loss is not adopted. However, according to the purport of the above plaintiff's oral argument, the claim of the member is interpreted to include a small amount of loss equivalent to the amount of loss caused by the loss of management ability due to the accident, among the income that the member's claim is able to be engaged in as a technician.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana11851) in the first instance trial

(1) Of the original judgment on the claim for damages against the plaintiff 1's property, the part against the defendant that the defendant paid to the above plaintiff 40 million won and the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from April 5, 1965 to the date of full payment shall be revoked.

(2) The plaintiff's remaining claim for damages on property is dismissed.

(3) The above plaintiff's claim for consolation money and the defendant's appeal against the other plaintiff et al. are dismissed.

(4) The costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne by the two-minutes of the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, and the remaining costs of appeal against the plaintiff, etc. shall be borne by the defendant.

(5) As to the plaintiff 1 in the disposition of the original judgment, a 3,00,000 won remaining, may be provisionally executed against each of the plaintiff 1 in the judgment of the original court.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 1,11,360 won, 30,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 20,000 won to the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively, and the amount of 20,000 won per annum from April 5, 1965 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution.

The defendant litigation performer shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff et al.

(1) Without dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence 2 (judgment), 8 (written opinion), 9 (written ground for Appeal), 10 (written evidence), 11-1, and 2 (Interrogation of Suspect), the non-party 1, who is the driver of the examination of the defendant's office, shall not be deemed to have worked for the night worker in the viewing room at the viewing room at the time, and the non-party 1, who is the driver of the examination of the defendant's office at the education committee to which the defendant belongs, at the night on April 3, 1965, is not deemed to have worked for the above vehicle at the time, and if the non-party 2, who is working for the above school, tried to return home at the time of the defendant's office at the time of the interrogation of the suspect, requested the 30-day boarding of the vehicle at the right time of the defendant, and shall not be deemed to have worked for the above 30-day boarding of the vehicle at the right time of the non-party 1, who was found to have been on the left-hand 1, 5-day.

In this case, in view of the relationship between the above victim who is a civilian and the defendant, the accident can be viewed as causing damage to the plaintiff 1's body by negligence because the non-party 1 who is a public official belonging to the defendant, who caused damage by negligence while performing his duties. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate

(2) Furthermore, according to the records in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7 (Simplified Life Table) with respect to the property damage suffered by plaintiff Nos. 1, 1 and 7 (Simplified Life Table) with no dispute over the establishment, Dong can recognize the fact that his average life expectancy is 24.19 as a male of the age of 38 (13 January 13, 1927) at the time of the accident, he shall be deemed to be alive by the age of 62, and there shall be no dispute over the establishment, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (2) with the witness of the court below's testimony and the result of the examination by the court below as a trade name (trade name omitted) electricity company at the time of the accident, which is (trade name omitted) electricity company at the time of the accident, and three employees shall be operated as an electrical engineer at the time of the accident, and it shall not be acknowledged that there is a net income of 30,000 won per month in the amount of 30,000 won per month.

Based on the above facts of recognition, the above plaintiff argued that the damage caused by the reduction rate of work ability caused by the person's injury to the maximum working age of the person. However, since the above recognition income is not a labor income but a business income (business income), it cannot be abstractly determined that the loss caused by the reduction in the amount of business income is proportional to the degree of the manager's loss of work ability, and the specific amount of decrease in the amount of loss caused by the accident should be determined. Thus, it is not clear statement as to the member's name of the member after the accident occurred until the accident occurred, and there is no proof as to this, the above damages are not adopted without merit. However, according to the purport of the above plaintiff's argument (the first oral argument of the court below), the scope of damages caused by the above plaintiff's injury to the person's property can be acknowledged as including the other party's loss of work ability due to the loss of the person's work ability from the above 30 percent of the total amount of damages caused to the non-party 1's testimony at the time of the above 20th appraiser's labor loss.

In this case, it can be known that the damages that the above plaintiff suffered every month due to the accident at issue were the fact that the rate of 6,000 won for the loss of labor ability from the monthly wage income of the above month was the 6,000 won, which is the part corresponding to the loss of labor ability. As such, the period of employment as an electrical engineer can be viewed as 210 months from the date when 3 months elapsed from the time of the accident alleged by the above plaintiff, i.e., the age of 55 years and 9 months (33 years and 210 months + 210 months) from the date when the accident alleged by the above plaintiff occurred, and such operation can be viewed as possible. Thus, the above person

Therefore, if the present value of the total loss is calculated as of the time of the accident at the time of the accident, the intermediate interest shall be deducted at the rate of 5 percent per annum pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act. Therefore, it is clear that the said amount is calculated as above 895,504 won (6,000 】 22592.259-2.9752).

However, according to the statement Nos. 4, 5 (Statement) and 4, 5 (Statement) without any dispute over the above facts and establishment, the above plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was under the influence of alcohol despite the passage prohibition time, and the road traveling across the vehicle has been in a narrow distance, and it can be recognized that there was negligence about intending to build the accident vehicle and that there was an access to the accident vehicle. Thus, it is reasonable to determine the amount of comparative negligence as KRW 400,00,000 in consideration of the victim's negligence.

(3) In relation to the claim of consolation money for the plaintiff et al., according to the statement of the above Gap evidence No. 1 and the testimony of the non-party 3 of the above witness, the plaintiff 2 is the wife of the plaintiff 1, and the remaining plaintiff et al. can recognize facts that they are their children. Thus, it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff et al. suffered mental pain due to the plaintiff 1's injury in the wife which is the victim, his spouse, or his lineal descendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay money to the plaintiff et al. to the plaintiff et al..... for the above amount. If considering the circumstances and results of the accident, the family relation of the plaintiff et al., the victim et al., and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments, it is reasonable to determine that the amount is KRW 30,000 as to the plaintiff 1, KRW 20,000 as to the plaintiff 2, and the remaining plaintiff et al.

(4) The defendant's assertion was originally agreed upon between the plaintiff et al. and the defendant on April 3, 1965, and the non-party 1 renounced the right to claim the above recognition damages on behalf of the plaintiff et al., but the non-party 5's testimony of the court below witness non-party 6 cannot be trusted in light of the non-party 6's testimony of the same witness, and the non-party 3's evidence (agreement) cannot be adopted since there is no other evidence to acknowledge the establishment and there is no other evidence to

(5) In the same way, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 430,00, KRW 20,000, and KRW 10,000, and the remainder of the plaintiff et al. from April 5, 1965 to the full payment date after the occurrence of each accident. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s claim for the principal lawsuit is deemed reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed by unjust means. Since the original judgment against the plaintiff 1's claim for property damages is unfair, the original judgment against the defendant other than that maintained at the trial is revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the above plaintiff's claim for consolation money and the remaining part of the plaintiff et al. are justifiable, and the judgment against the plaintiff et al. is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the same Act with respect to the defendant's claim for provisional execution against the plaintiff et al., and Article 989 of the Civil Execution Act with respect to the remaining costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 996.

Judges Kim Byung-su (Presiding Judge)