Even before the accident, the criteria for calculating the lost income of the victim who had no income at the time of the accident.

Even if the victim had been working as the executive director, representative director, etc. of the company by no later than the day before the death of the accident, the amount of loss of future income of the person must be calculated on the basis of general labor wages, in absence of certain incomes at the time of the accident. However, the court below erred in calculating the lost income on the basis of the salary expected to be received by the person with the victim's educational ability, career, etc., without any particular evidence.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da844 delivered on July 18, 1967, 71Da1349 delivered on July 27, 197, and 76Da2418 delivered on November 8, 197

The plaintiffs et al., who are minors and two others are legal representatives, and they are attorneys Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

Defendant 1 and 2 others, Defendant 3 (Attorney Yu-seok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2541 delivered on November 21, 1980

1. Of the part against Defendant 2 of the lower judgment, the remaining part of the lower judgment excluding the part ordering the Plaintiffs to pay consolation money of KRW 500,000 and the part ordering payment of consolation money of KRW 50,000 per annum from July 18, 1979 to the full payment day, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High

2. All remaining appeals by Defendant 2 and the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.

3. The costs of the appeal in respect of which the appeal is dismissed shall be borne by each appellant.

1. First, we examine Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal.

In principle, the amount of future income loss of a victim who dies or is injured by a tort shall be calculated on the basis of the amount of profit derived from the work for which the victim was engaged at the time when such damage occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1349, Jul. 27, 1971). However, only when there are objective data clearly predicted that the increase in the profit would have been obviously increased, the profit to be increased shall be taken into account (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2418, Nov. 8, 1977; 79Da579, May 22, 1979). The amount of future income loss of a victim who did not have certain income at the time of death can not be calculated on the basis of ordinary labor wages that can be obtained from the victim's work at the time of such tort, and the amount of damages can not be calculated on the basis of the amount of damages which the victim could not have obtained on the basis of the victim's academic background or work experience, and the amount of damages can not be calculated on the basis of the victim's opinion.

The reason why this point is attributable to it is.

With respect to the part of Defendant 2’s appeal on the claim for consolation money, there is no indication of the grounds in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief, nor there is no submission of separate appellate brief.

2. Next, we examine the plaintiffs' grounds for appeal.

Since it is reasonable to calculate the amount of future loss of a victim who died of a tort according to the above criteria, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of loss of income in accordance with the above criteria. Accordingly, there is no argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on calculation of amount of loss compensation or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence.

Of the plaintiffs' appeals, the part on defendant 1 and the part on the claim for consolation money against the remaining Defendants are not indicated in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief, and there is no reason of appeal separately.

3. Therefore, since the part of the appeal by Defendant 2, excluding the consolation money, is well-grounded, this part of the case shall be reversed and remanded. The remaining appeal by the same defendant and the appeal by the plaintiffs are without merit. The appeal by the dismissed part of the appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)