A. Whether the amount of damages can be reduced solely based on the fact that he/she is a person on board (negative)

(b) Criteria for calculating the daily profit of those who have graduated from a university and have attended a graduate school in one year;

A. The amount of damages cannot be reduced solely by the fact that he/she was on the ground of his/her participation in the following subparagraphs without any other special reason.

(b) The decision of the court below is justified in that those who graduated from a university and were enrolled in the first year in a graduate school shall be able to gain profits from the wage equivalent to the initial appointment of at least the graduates of the university while graduating from a graduate school, and that the average wage of a person with career experience of less than one year in an accident, who is an employee who has the education near the university at the time of the accident and who has the education of at least the graduates of the university, shall be

(a)Article 763(a) of the Civil Code, Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Defendant Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na194 delivered on December 17, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal (1) and (2) are examined.

As duly admitted by the court below, it is justified that the court below rejected the defendant's fault-off defense that the plaintiff did not wear a safety mark as to the defendant's fault-off defense that the plaintiff failed to wear a safety mark as to the safety mark, and the defendant was on the Cheongju as the Cheongju. Thus, the above plaintiff's share in the defendant's car to the Cheongju. The defendant's share in the defendant's car to the Cheongju. In the case of the accident of this case, the amount of damages cannot be reduced only by the fact that the plaintiff was on the hoju without any other special reason. The court below's decision that rejected the defendant's fault-off defense that the plaintiff did not wear a safety mark is justified

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

On February 25, 1985, the court below recognized that the plaintiff graduated from ○ University △△△△△ at the time of the accident in this case and recognized that he was in the first-year course with the above University △△△△△ at the time of the accident in this case, and determined that he could obtain a profit from the wage per wage equivalent to the starting wage of workers who have at least a graduate of a university in this case, and that he could obtain a profit equivalent to the starting wage of the workers who have at least a graduate of a university in this case, and that he was an employee who had at least a graduate of a university in the near 1984 at the time of the accident in this case and was in the career of less than one year as an actual profit loss amount. The court below's decision

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 Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)