The case affirming the court below's order that the court below's measures calculated on the basis of the type of change of occupation with the academic career of at least university graduates and the average wage of less than one year of career experience after completing military service after graduation of a university shall be justified.

The case affirming the court below's order that the court below's measures calculated on the basis of the type of change of occupation with at least university graduates' educational background, and average wage for those with experience less than one year, after completing military service and preparing employment shall be justified.

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

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

Park Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na31253 delivered on November 15, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below determined that the monetary value of the above deceased's working ability, which serves as the basis for calculating the daily income, should be presumed as the average wage of a person with less than one year experience over a former class of a university graduate, on the ground that the above deceased's work experience reaches the degree of work ability of a worker with less than one year experience than one year after graduating from the university at the time of the accident, and that the above deceased's work ability reaches the degree of work ability of a person with less than one year experience over a former class of a university graduate. In light of the records, the court below's measure is just and there is no error of misapprehending the rule of evidence and the rule of experience in determining the value of evidence or in calculating the actual income by violating the rule of experience as pointed out. In addition, the court below's decision is without merit, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the rule of evidence and the rule of experience.

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 Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)