(a) Whether it is possible to calculate the profit-making loss on the basis of profits as a driver after passing the driver's license test at the time of the accident; and

(b) The base date for calculating the amount of profit-making loss in case where the period to be placed at work reaches after the closing of argument; and

A. The Plaintiff 1, who was not employed as a driver at the time of the instant accident, cannot claim damages on the basis of the rural daily labor income, unless it is proven that there was any other profit, since the fact that the Plaintiff 1 passed the driver license examination alone is insufficient to recognize the probability of being employed as a driver.

B. Since the Plaintiff sought compensation for loss of profit from 24 years of age who completed military service for three years after the accident of this case, it shall be based on the daily wages for rural communities at the time of the closing of argument in this case close to the Plaintiff.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1693 delivered on April 23, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 1133Da1693 delivered on June 169, 168, 166Da283 delivered on March 30, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 67Da283 delivered on March 30, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 67Da283 delivered on March 30, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 1208Da1208 delivered on April 16, 196, Supreme Court Decision 167Da2764 delivered on January 31, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 7Da2764 delivered on March 30, 199, and Article 76399 of the Civil Act delivered on March 30, 1969(Supreme Court Decision 109Da10999 delivered on March 109, and Article 76399 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Defendant corporation

Daegu District Court of First Instance (75 Gohap379)

In the judgment of the court below, the part against Plaintiff 1 in the disposition No. 1 shall be modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 1,100,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from August 1, 1972 to the date of full payment.

All appeals against the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's plaintiff 1 are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff 1.

The appeal costs of the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant's appeal costs against the same plaintiffs shall be borne by each appellant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

The part of the judgment against the plaintiff, etc. among the original judgment is revoked. The defendant sought against the plaintiff 1 1,417,935 won in 10,000 won in 10,000 won in 4,5,6,7, and 8 in 10,000 won in 10,000 won in 4, 5, 6, and 7, and 8 in 50,000 won in 1,000 won in 1972 to 10,000 won in 1,000 won in 1,000 won in 1,000 won in 1,000 won in 200, and the judgment of provisional execution

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

On July 31, 1972, the non-party 2, who is the driver of the (vehicle number omitted) truck of the defendant company, added some of the testimony and arguments to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's entries in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, without dispute. The non-party 2, the non-party 2, who is the driver of the (vehicle number omitted) truck of the defendant company, had the above vehicle transported pine trees by driving the above vehicle between the mountain site and the Chuncheon station located in the west-gun of 12:0 on the day. The plaintiff 1 was aware of the fact that the non-party 2, who was the non-party 3 and the non-party 2, did not know of the fact that the above vehicle had been loaded in the above west-gun station of 12:0,000 on the right-hand side of the vehicle and did not have a duty of care to remove the plaintiff 2's 1,000,000 won.

The defendant's failure in the same vehicle is due to the fact that the plaintiff 1 caused the machinery due to the gab gab gab gab gab gab gab gab gab gab gab gab, and the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the plaintiff's body, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this accident. However, as seen above, the plaintiff is a person who was on the part of the above vehicle with the non-party 2 and was on the part of the non-party 2, and was on the part of the non-party 2 to prevent the accident in cooperation with the operation of the non-party 2, and the negligence that the plaintiff was on the part of the non-party 2 even

Therefore, if the plaintiff 1's property damage is combined with the appraisal result of the non-party 3's appraiser Nos. 1 and 8-1 and 2, the above plaintiff 1's property damage is 372 months from the age of 24 years which he had completed military service for 3 years to the age of 55 which is recognized in our empirical rule. The above plaintiff's property damage is 1,507 won as of June 1, 1975 and 1,000 won as of 1,50 won per day, 25% per annum, 37,675 won per annum, and 285% per annum from the above 1,000 won per month as of 25% per annum, and the above plaintiff's property damage can be calculated as 37,675 won per year from the above 280% per annum, so it is reasonable that the above plaintiff's loss of 287,2850 won per year from the above average loss of labor profit per 28685% per annum.

However, the plaintiff 1's attorney claimed compensation for loss of profit as a driver of a large truck since the plaintiff 1 passed the first-class license examination at the time of the accident. However, at the time of the accident, he sought compensation for loss of profit as a driver of a large truck. However, it is insufficient to recognize the possibility that the above plaintiff was not employed as driver as a driver at the time of the accident. The plaintiff 1's representative cannot claim damages based on the minimum income of rural labor at the time of the accident. Thus, the above assertion is without merit, and the defendant's attorney claimed that the above plaintiff's loss amount should be considered as the daily work wage at the time of the accident. However, the plaintiff 1 sought compensation for loss of profit from 24 years of age after completing military service for the three years after the accident. Thus, the plaintiff's representative should claim compensation for loss of profit from rural daily work at the time of the closing of the argument in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's most adjacent thereto should be based on the daily work wage at the time of the closing of the argument.

The following facts are examined as to the claim for consolation money. According to the above evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the plaintiff 4's father, 5, 6, 7, and 8's mother, 5, 7, and 8's father's mother, and the plaintiff 4's father's mother, 5, 6, 7, and 8's birth respectively. Since it can be easily recognized under our rule of experience that the plaintiff 1's injury would receive severe mental distress, the defendant is obligated to do so as money. Accordingly, considering the plaintiffs' age, family relation, circumstance of this accident, degree of injury, degree of property, degree of property, degree of property, and other various circumstances shown in this argument, it is reasonable to determine the amount of 100,000 won to the plaintiff 1, 50,000 won to the plaintiff 2 and 3, and 20,000 won to the rest of the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,100,000 won in 50,000 won, 4,5,6,7, and8 respectively, of consolation money to the plaintiff 2, and 3 as 50,000 won, and 20,000 won per annum from August 1, 1972 to the date following the occurrence of this accident. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it shall be accepted, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without the reasons. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 1 is justified. Since the defendant's appeal against this part is justified, the remaining part of the original judgment is modified, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 4,5,6,7, and the remaining part of the original judgment is just, and the defendant's appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed without any grounds, and Article 95 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 989 (1) 9 of the provisional execution Act shall be applied.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)