A. Whether only the victim's scam aboard is not a "other person" under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act or can be said to have been negligent (negative)

B. Whether the daily average wage at the time of closing argument above the victim’s pay can be calculated on the basis of the general daily wage when the amount of the daily average wage is the maximum (affirmative)

A. It cannot be said that the injured party cannot be deemed to be a third party under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act solely with the fact that the injured party was on the part of the injured party, and that there was a negligence

(b) In calculating the future lost profit to be acquired by a victim due to a tort, if the general daily wage as at the time of the closing of argument is a large amount, the general daily wage may be selected, and such standard may be used.

A. Article 750 of the Civil Act: Articles 763 and 393 of the same Act; Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Da1899 Decided February 26, 1980 (Gong1980, 12690) (Gong12690) Decided January 31, 1989

Orala et al.

Lee Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na32928 delivered on October 11, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Based on the facts acknowledged by the evidence, the court below determined that the person in a position to directly manage and operate the instant vehicle by lending the instant vehicle from the defendant is the non-party Kim Jong-sung and that the plaintiff O Young-chul alone cannot be viewed as not being another person under the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Act only with the operation of the said vehicle. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as

2. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the above plaintiff's negligence is deemed to be 30 percent on the ground that the above plaintiff's above plaintiff's failure to wear a safety level in light of the circumstances of the accident in its holding, etc. is just and correct, since the above plaintiff's failure to wear a safety mark is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. In calculating the future profit to be acquired by the victim due to a tort, the general daily wage at the time of the closing of argument can be used as the basis when the general daily wage at the time of the closing of argument is a large amount than the general daily wage at the workplace. Therefore, the court below's determination in the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise pointed out. The argument is without merit.

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)