(a) The case affirming the lower court’s measure that calculated the rate of loss of labor capacity as an employee for daily work in rural communities due to the emulative disability such as damage, writing function, and aesthetic sense of three young children by 5% according to the standards under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act;

(b) Whether measures are taken on the basis of the daily wage for rural communities calculated on the basis of the actual income of the victim who has resided in an urban area after the accident occurred while living in the rural area at the time of the accident (affirmative)

(a) The case affirming the lower court’s measure that calculated the rate of loss of labor capacity as an employee for daily work in rural communities due to the emulative disability such as damage, writing function, and aesthetic sense of three young children by 5% according to the standards under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act;

B. Unless there are special circumstances, the computation of lost income due to a tort shall be based on the victim’s profit at the time of loss of labor capacity, i.e., when the victim lost labor capacity. Therefore, the measure that calculated the lost income of the victim who resided in an agricultural area at the time of the accident based on the daily wage for rural communities is justifiable, and it does not change even if the victim had resided in an urban area after the accident.

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na48077 delivered on January 24, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the injury suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case was lost by 5 percent out of the work ability as an employee for rural day as a rural worker because the plaintiff suffered from the irrecoverable after the completion of medical treatment, such as the damage to the fluoral fright, the damage to the fluoral fright and the right side fluoral fright, etc., and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

The court below's calculation of the above labor disability loss rate according to the criteria of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act is not sufficient to conclude that the judgment below lacks objectivity like the theory of lawsuit. There is no argument.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

Unless there are special circumstances, the calculation of lost income due to a tort shall be based on the victim's provisional income at the time of loss of labor capacity, i.e., when the loss of labor capacity, and in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding the fact that the plaintiff resided in the rural area at the time of the accident in this case and engaged in agriculture, and then calculating the plaintiff's lost income based on the plaintiff's daily wage for rural communities. This does not change even if the plaintiff had resided in the urban area, such as theory after the accident in this case, even if he had

As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff was required for the amount of 1,050,000 won each time during the remaining life period from time evidence to time, and based on this, calculated the total amount of the fire extinguishing treatment expenses in the future. In light of the records, the decision of the court below is just, and there is no illegality.

In the lawsuit, the purport that the amount of the court below's approval is excessive in view of the fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court of fact-finding, is that the amount of the bar bar treatment fee already implemented was much higher than the above amount of 443,100 won. However, it is nothing more than criticism about the fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the

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

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)