Whether public charges shall be deducted in calculating the lost income of a victim of a tort

Even in cases where income tax, etc. is withheld, the income itself refers to the amount for which taxes are not deducted, so it shall not be allowed to deduct the amount of taxes in calculating the actual income of the victims of illegal acts.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1623 delivered on September 22, 1980

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff following the tax deduction shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of the final appeal against the dismissed part of the final appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

1) In a case where the future income was lost as in this case and the claim is made at once, the deduction of 5% of the annual interest rate shall be made as natural in the calculation of the present price. Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is justified, and there is no ground for appeal as to this point.

2) Since the original income tax is imposed on the income in principle, even if the income tax is withheld, the income itself is income that has not been deducted, so the court below erred in the misapprehension of the above legal principles as to the measure in which the income tax is deducted from the amount of income tax in calculating the lost loss of the plaintiff's future earnings.

3) According to the records, the amount of KRW 165,80 per month paid to the Plaintiff in May, 1979 and June is not paid monthly, but paid as business promotion expenses temporarily paid, and the theory of lawsuit is not paid periodically, and there is no evidence to deem there is a rule or practice in which the Defendant Company pays retirement consolation money to the Plaintiff. In this regard, the court below's rejection of the Plaintiff's claim on the theory of lawsuit, bonus, and retirement consolation money is just and it is not against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

1) In light of the records, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff assumed office as the defendant's director, and accepted the measure that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff from office as a director unless there is any justifiable reason, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles or in the misunderstanding of the legal principles in the evidence preparation which

2) This theory is without merit that the tax rate should not be deducted in calculating the actual profit of earned income, as described in Section 1-2 (2) above, and therefore, it is reasonable to bring an action to the effect that the tax rate is a tariff rate.

3) Of the theory of lawsuit, the fact that the term of office of the Plaintiff is a director appointed by the unanimous decision does not extend to the remaining term of office of his predecessor, and that at least the income from urban daily labor should be deducted from the lost income during the period during which the Plaintiff is unable to be employed as a director due to dismissal, it cannot be viewed as a basis for criticism in the original form, which was not asserted by the lower court.

Therefore, since the judgment of the court below was deducted from the amount of taxes, the part against the plaintiff due to chickens shall be reversed and remanded, other original costs and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)