The legitimacy of the presumption that the victim will be engaged in daily work in the future because it was impossible to engage in the previous occupation due to partial loss of labor ability.

Even if the victim was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to the aftermath of a traffic accident, it can not be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily wages, only by reason of that fact, and only if there are special circumstances that the victim is unable to engage in the occupation or occupation which has more income than the urban daily wages, it can be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily wages.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Da117, 86Meu658 Decided July 22, 1986, Decided 85Meu2180 Decided April 8, 1986

Plaintiff

Suwon Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel Kim Jong-sik, Song-sik, Park Jong-soo, Park Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na2208 Decided January 17, 1986

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below established the following facts as a whole: the plaintiff engaged in driving water for about 16 years after obtaining the driver's license on June 17, 1968, and was paid 450,00 won each month after being employed by the non-party Hadong-si, a non-party 1 company's branch owner at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the original time; however, the accident at issue occurred due to the accident at issue, the injury occurred while the physical condition with driving technology at the time of the accident, such as driving water, etc., and the physical condition with driving technology at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, the plaintiff could no longer be engaged in driving water at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of 20th day after the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of 20th day after the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at 20th day after the accident.

(2) However, even if the plaintiff was unable to engage in the previous original city work due to the original city work after the original city work, its future income cannot be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the urban daily work wage. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the urban daily work wage only when there are special circumstances predicted that it is difficult for the plaintiff to engage in an occupation or occupation which has more income than the urban daily work wage and it is impossible to engage in only urban daily work. (See Supreme Court Decision 86Da117, Jul. 22, 1986; 86Da658, Jul. 22, 1986, etc.). The records are examined, it cannot be found that the plaintiff could not engage in such related or similar work in addition to the driving of the automobile at the time of the accident, and it can not be found that there was a violation of the rules of evidence that the plaintiff could not be engaged in the plaintiff's future work due to the plaintiff's lack of sufficient deliberation and determination of the actual urban wage.

(3) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding property damage shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)