(a) The method for calculating the lost profit in a damage compensation case caused by a tort;

B. Whether the calculation of the lost income can be made on the basis of estimated statistical income based on the “report on the Survey of Actual Conditions of Workers’ Wages” where the income of the victim, who is an individual business owner, mainly depends on the employer’s individual labor (affirmative)

A. In a tort compensation case, in calculating the actual profit of the victim, it may be assessed on the basis of the victim’s income at the time of the accident, and it may be assessed on the basis of estimated income. Since the calculation of the actual profit is predicted of uncertain future facts, it is sufficient to calculate the reasonable and objective expected income based on the specific circumstances that were present at the case in question, and it is difficult to readily conclude that only one of the parties is a legitimate calculation method.

B. The calculation of the lost income of a person running a personal business shall be based on the objective data to recognize the business entity's personnel status, necessary expenses, capital facilities, etc., if there are revealed, it shall be reasonable to determine the income of the business entity first and to measure the degree of contribution or labor value of the business entity's individual employees, among them. However, if such data are not present, it may be calculated by the amount equivalent to the remuneration, i.e., the amount equivalent to the remuneration where a person with the same academic background, career, management ability, etc. as the victim employs a person with the same degree of educational background, career, management ability, etc., but if the victim's income, who is the individual employer, mainly depends on the personal labor of the business owner, falls short of the capital income of the business owner, it may be calculated by the "report on the Actual

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1580 decided Mar. 22, 1988 (Gong1988.678). Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4093, 4109 decided Dec. 12, 1989 (Gong1990.248) decided Apr. 10, 1990 (Gong1990.1037) (Gong130 Decided Apr. 24, 1990) (Gong88Da19255 decided Apr. 24, 1990)

Attorney Lee Jae-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na10713 delivered on June 21, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

In a damage compensation case involving a tort, it may be assessed on the basis of the victim's income at the time of the accident, and it may be assessed on the basis of estimated income. Since the computation of lost income is predicted of uncertain future facts, it is sufficient to calculate reasonable and objectivity expectation income based on the specific circumstances present in the case in question, and it cannot be readily concluded that only one party is a legitimate calculation method (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1580, Mar. 22, 198).

Therefore, it is reasonable to determine the amount of actual income of a person operating a personal business first based on the company's sales, necessary expenses, capital facilities, etc., if objective data to recognize the company's individual's contribution or labor value are revealed, and based on the company's contribution or labor value among them (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu451 delivered on September 9, 1986). However, if such data are not presented, the amount equivalent to remuneration if a person with the same academic background, career, and management ability as the victim is employed, taking into account the company's scale, management status, number of employees, management performance, etc., the amount equivalent to the amount of remuneration if the person employs a person with the same degree of academic background, career, and management ability as the victim, i.e., the cost of alternative employment (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu10906 delivered on June 13, 1989). If the victim's income mainly depends on the company's individual labor, it can be determined based on the presumption of actual employment income of the victim.

In light of the records, the plaintiff did not have any objective data to recognize that the plaintiff had been operating for 10 years at the time of the accident, necessary expenses, capital facilities, etc. The revenue from the above company is mainly dependent on the labor of the plaintiff's individual, while the capital revenue from the above company is very minor. Therefore, it is just in the court below to calculate the plaintiff's lost income in the above purport, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no argument.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below that the plaintiff suffered from an injury caused by the accident in this case, which caused an injury to the 4th and 5th century, and lost 39 percent of the operation ability as a tobacco retailer, and it is reasonable to accept the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of the lawsuit. Therefore, there is no merit

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)