(a) The case holding that measures taken to calculate the lost profit on the basis of the unit cost of government wages are justifiable on the ground that no objectivity and universality are available;

(b) The case holding that an act by a lower-ranking police officer who did not restrain a superior from assaulting a suspect does not constitute a tort by omission at the police box;

(a) The case holding that a measure taken to calculate the lost profit on the basis of the unit cost of government wages is justifiable on the ground that no objectivity and universality are available;

(b) The case holding that an act by a lower-ranking police officer who did not restrain a superior from assaulting a suspect does not constitute a tort by omission at the police box.

A. Article 763 of the Civil Act: Article 750 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da9602 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2009) 91Da8890 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 2339), Supreme Court Decision 91Da31227 delivered on December 24, 1991 (Gong192, 679) (Gong1609 delivered on January 23, 1968)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Republic of Korea and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na3569 delivered on November 5, 1991

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that Defendant 1, as a police officer, assaulted Nonparty 1 within the police box, and inflicted an injury on him as stated in its judgment, and caused him to die of saccinological cerebral cerebral Bribery. The above fact-finding can be accepted in comparison with the records, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of litigation, or incomplete deliberation, and there is no reason to

2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the scope of liability for damages by recognizing the negligence caused by Defendant 1 by the act of violence of this case, such as taking a handknife to Defendant 1, who was duly performing his duties, and driving a box with him, and avoiding disturbance. In comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and the degree of comparative negligence is also deemed reasonable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence or negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the argument is without merit.

B. In calculating the lost profit of the deceased, it cannot be found in the records that the base application method, the survey institution, the object and scope of the survey, the method of the survey, the basis for calculation, or the basis for calculation cannot be known, and thus, the objective of verifying objectivity and universality cannot be found. Therefore, the court below's decision is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above deceased's lost profit without employing the above market wage unit and calculating the unit cost of government wage. The records show that the plaintiffs did not prove that the unit cost of government wage in the year 1991 of the lawsuit was not proved until the closing of the argument in the court below. Thus, the court below's decision that the lost profit was calculated based on the unit cost of government wage in the year 190, which is close to the date of the closing of argument in the pleading cannot be justified. In addition, the purport of rejecting the claim that the court below's decision that the lost profit should be based on the unit cost of government wage should be viewed as the purport of rejecting the claim.

C. According to the records, the court below's action rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the defendants, other than the defendant 1 and the Republic of Korea, jointly assaulted the non-party 1 with the non-party 1 in group and caused his death, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or the rules of experience such as theory of lawsuit, and since the defendant 2 and the defendant 3 can be known as a subordinate of the non-party 1, it is difficult to conclude that the tort caused by omission is established as in the lawsuit because he did not restrain the non-party 1's assault against the non-party 1, and it is difficult to view that the defendant 4, a superior of the above police box, did not report the above deceased when he assaults the above deceased, and even if the court below did not decide on this issue, the judgment below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and the above defendants' lawsuit by the above defendants cannot be viewed as having a proximate causal relation with the death of the above deceased, and we cannot agree with the records.

D. In light of the records, the amount of consolation money cited by the court below is deemed appropriate and there is no error of law such as theory of litigation.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is without merit.

3. Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)