The legitimacy of estimating the victim's future income as the amount equivalent to the urban daily wages (negative) solely on the ground that the victim was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to post-treatment, etc. (negative)

Even if the victim was unable to engage in the previous occupation due to after-the-job legacy, it can not be presumed that the future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage, and only if there are special circumstances that the victim is difficult to engage in the occupation or occupation that has larger income than the future urban daily wage and it is not possible for him to engage in the daily work, his future income can be presumed as the amount equivalent to the daily wage.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1451 Decided December 24, 1985 (limited to the Dong) Decided 85Meu1228 Decided December 24, 1985 (limited to the Dong) and Decision 85Meu1451 Decided December 24, 1985

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants (Attorney Song Young-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na3008 delivered on January 29, 1985

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendants' remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed above are assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was injured on May 6, 1983 as a healthy female worker of 1962.6.10 years of age 20 years of age and 52 years of age. The plaintiff was employed for the non-party 2, who operated the financial business on December 22, 1980 as an office worker of the non-party 3, and was employed for the non-party 1, 5 months of age as an office worker of the short-term financial division. The plaintiff was admitted as an office worker of the non-party 1, 5 months of age to 3, 1962 of age 1, 3, 1962 of age 1, 1962 of age 1, 197 of age 1, 197 of age 7 of age 1, 197 of age 1, 3,000 of age 1, 197 of age 1,000 of age 1,000 of age 3.

However, even if the plaintiff was unable to engage in the previous original work due to after-sales legacy, it cannot be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to his future income only when there are special circumstances that it is difficult to engage in an occupation or occupation with more income than the urban daily wage and it is predicted that it cannot be engaged in only daily work (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu449 delivered on September 24, 1985). The court below did not examine whether the plaintiff is unable to engage in an occupation or occupation with more income than his future daily work wage, and it is deemed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the urban daily work wage without examining whether there are special circumstances that the plaintiff can not be engaged in only in the urban daily work, and it constitutes the ground for reversal of the article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Calculation of Actual Income and the violation of the rules of evidence.

On the other hand, the Defendants did not express the grounds of appeal as to the consolation money portion while they did not appeal against the entire part of the judgment below. Accordingly, this part of the appeal shall not be dismissed. In this regard, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants regarding property damage among the part against the Defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals by the Defendants are without merit, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal are dismissed and are so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)