Income that serves as the basis for calculating the lost profit due to a tort;

In principle, the amount of lost profit due to a tort shall be calculated based on the victim's profit at the time of the tort. However, when there is a special circumstance that leads to an increase in the victim's profit in the future after the tort was committed, the amount of increased profit can be determined based only on the amount when the perpetrator knew or could have known such circumstance. Therefore, when a claim for damages is filed against the company belonging to the Corporation, the company belonging to the Corporation can predict the above special situation because it is the subject of the wage, and when a claim for damages is filed based on the daily labor wage, it shall be deemed that the said wage is an increase in the number of days. Thus, the amount of lost profit may be calculated based on the increased wage as at the time of the closing

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da588 delivered on November 1, 1962, 71Da1349 delivered on July 27, 1971, and 76Da2418 delivered on November 8, 1977, and 80Da3270 delivered on March 24, 1981, and 80Da2322 delivered on April 14, 1981

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1358 delivered on June 27, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff, who is a public official, from office on August 30, 197, on the ground that the plaintiff was on board the bus of the defendant company, but lost 33 percent of the city's daily work ability due to the accident, and that the plaintiff was not capable of performing his duties on June 18, 1979. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff's average salary grade was increased at the time of the argument of the court below, it is not sufficient to prove the special circumstance that the defendant knew or could know the above fact at the time of the argument of the court below, the plaintiff's daily work income should be calculated on the basis of the plaintiff's average salary grade at the time of the accident of this case. However, in this case, the court below found that the defendant calculated the plaintiff's daily work income on the basis of the average salary grade at the time of the above dismissal of the plaintiff, and the Supreme Court precedents cited by the defendant are inappropriate.

In the event that the loss is expected due to the reduction of the profit due to the original illegal act, the calculation of the amount shall be based on the victim's profit at the time of the illegal act. However, if there are special circumstances that increase the profit of the victim in the future after the illegal act, the amount may be based on the increased profit only on the time when the actor knew or could have known such correction. In this case, if the plaintiff's salary was increased after the accident, as in special circumstances, it shall be liable for damages for the plaintiff's lost profit calculated on the basis of the above increased profit only when the defendant knew or could have known the special circumstances of the increase of the plaintiff's salary at the time of the accident.

However, the plaintiff's attorney cited Supreme Court Decisions 79Da579 delivered on May 22, 1979, 79Da1441 delivered on October 30, 1979, 79Da189 delivered on February 26, 1980, and 79Da1899 delivered on the purport that the plaintiff's attorney shall calculate the plaintiff's lost earnings on the basis of the plaintiff's salary raised at the time of oral argument. All of the above precedents are related to cases where the victims of the mining damage claim damages against the company to which they belong, or where the victims claim damages against the Korea Coal Corporation's lost daily wages, the Korea Coal Corporation is the main agent of the increase in the wages, and where the Korea Coal Corporation claims damages against the Korea Coal Corporation's lost profits on the basis of the victim's annual wage increase plan as well as to cases where it is reasonable for the State to calculate the victim's actual wage at the time of oral argument, regardless of the fact that the victim's actual wage increase was known at the time of oral argument.

Therefore, the above precedents are interpreted to the same purport and the disposition of the court below that judged as above is meaningful, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by making a false interpretation contrary to the precedents of the previous Supreme Court like the theory of the lawsuit.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court calculated the Plaintiff’s future salary by deducting 67 percent of the wages that the Plaintiff may obtain from engaging in daily work in urban labor based on the daily wage at the time of closing argument for the same period from the total amount of salary according to the Plaintiff’s salary according to the average salary class at the time of retirement from the Plaintiff’s retirement to 55, which is the retirement age of public officials, based on the average salary class of the Plaintiff’s retirement.

However, if the plaintiff retires from office after the accident and loses 33 percent of the labor force as an urban employee, as in this case, the plaintiff's daily salary should be calculated on the basis of the plaintiff's salary at the time of the accident, and as seen above, the defendant recognized that the defendant calculated the daily salary at the time of the plaintiff's retirement based on the plaintiff's salary at the time of the accident, and thus, it should be followed.

In such a case, in order to calculate the daily pay, the sum of 67 percent of the daily pay at the time of retirement from the date of retirement to the date of the closing of argument (or the nearest time; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 62 percent of the daily pay at the time of the closing of argument shall be deducted from the sum of the amount of the Plaintiff’s salary at the time of retirement from the sum of the Plaintiff’s salary at the time of retirement from the date of retirement to the date of the closing of argument (see Supreme Court Decisions 70Da2697, Jan. 26, 197; 76Da734, May 25, 1976). However, as seen above, the court below calculated the amount of the Plaintiff’s salary at the time different from the amount of the Plaintiff’s salary at the time of retirement from the date of the Plaintiff’s retirement from the date of the second day of pleading to the date of closing of argument. However, as long as the Plaintiff’s legal representative did not change the Plaintiff’s wage at the time of oral labor until the closing of oral.

The question is also groundless.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)