Whether a loss equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the wage profit expected to be increased in the future is ordinary loss (affirmative)

In principle, the lost profit of the wage income which has lost the ability to work due to the tort shall be calculated on the basis of the wage income at the time of the loss of the ability to work, but if there are objective data which can be predicted clearly to increase the profit of the future, the amount of the profit to be increased in the future should also be considered in calculating the lost profit. As such, the amount of damages equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the profit of the future which would be increased in the future should be considered in calculating the lost profit. It does not change the scope of compensation depending on whether the perpetrator knew or could have known the fact that the amount of damages equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu6761 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 350) decided April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1054)

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for the Korean Red Cross

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na635 delivered on December 20, 1989

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First and Second Points:

In its reasoning, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff received KRW 68,900 per month for extraordinary civil service at the time of the Plaintiff’s retirement due to the instant accident; and (b) the said business operator received KRW 68,90 per annum at the time of the said accident; (c) the said business operator received KRW 1 once a year; and (d) the basic salary was increased pursuant to the Plaintiff’s winning; and (e) the sales assistant’s job pay increased to KRW 70,000 per month; and (e) there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant knew, or could have known, of such special circumstances as the basic salary class under subparagraph 1 and the increase of duty pay from December 6, 1986, after the date of the instant accident.

However, in principle, the lost profit of a wage income earner who has lost his/her labor ability due to a tort shall be calculated on the basis of the wage profit at the time of the loss of his/her labor capacity, but if there are objective data which can clearly be predicted to increase his/her wage profit at the time of the loss of his/her labor capacity, the wage profit to be increased in the future shall also be considered in calculating the lost profit. As such, the damages equivalent to the lost profit calculated on the basis of the wage profit to be increased in the future should be considered in calculating the lost profit. It does not change the scope of compensation depending on whether the tortfeasor knew or could have known the fact that the lost profit was ordinarily recognized by the pertinent tort, and that the amount of compensation was increased in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6761, Dec. 26, 198; 89Meu28140, Apr. 10, 199)

Therefore, while recognizing facts as stated in its holding, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds stated in its holding is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of damages, and this constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. The allegation

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined, based on the evidence, that the plaintiff as an indoor worker due to the aftermath of the accident in this case has lost 52 percent and 38 percent as an indoor worker. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as pointed out, as

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding property damage shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)