(a) The reason that the future profit will increase and the calculation of the lost profit; and

(b) In a lawsuit claiming retirement allowances in the office, where the defendant fails to prove the deduction of contributions, the legality of the judgment that calculated the retirement allowances in the office without deducting contributions;

(c) Whether it may be based on profits which a doctor may obtain by engaging in work as a medical doctor in calculating the lost profits of a victim who has attended a two-year course at a medical college or college;

(a) In calculating the lost profit of the victim who died due to a tort, in principle, the calculation shall be based on the victim’s profit at the time of his death, and in case where there is objective data which clearly shows that the profit will be increased in the future, the profit to be increased shall also be considered.

B. In calculating losses of a soldier who died due to an illegal act, the amount that the deceased would have to pay to the National Treasury as a contribution should be calculated by deducting the amount. However, if the other party did not prove the deduction of the above contribution by the time the argument is concluded at the trial court, if the other party did not prove the deduction of the said contribution by the time the argument is concluded at the trial court, it cannot be deemed unlawful by calculating the amount of retirement allowance

C. Even if the deceased was selected as a commissioned student of the Air Force and entered a medical college, his academic achievement was higher than that of the above medical college, and the success rate of the above medical college graduates was higher than 90 percent each year, such fact alone cannot be said to be objectively clear that the deceased could have been employed as a doctor after he graduated from the above medical college, passed the above medical college, passed the public notice of the doctor state, and completed the prescribed military service.

(b)Article 763(b) of the Civil Code, Article 37 and Article 38 of the Military Pension Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da2418 delivered on November 18, 197, 79Da1899 delivered on February 26, 1980

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Han Jae-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na2447 delivered on May 22, 1984

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

In calculating the lost profit of a victim who died due to a tort, in principle, if there are objective materials which show a considerable degree of increase in the deceased's actual profit at the time of his death, such increase in profit should also be taken into account (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2418, Nov. 18, 197; Supreme Court Decision 79Da1899, Feb. 26, 1980). According to the facts established by the court below in this case, the victim of this case was the Air Force Corps at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, which would continue to be promoted to Taiwan after the lapse of the minimum service period for promotion under Article 26 (1) of the Military Personnel Management Act, and thus, the average monthly remuneration, which serves as the basis for calculating the lost profit of the deceased at the time of his death, should be calculated according to the promotion, should also be considered. In light of the purport of Article 25 (1) of the Military Personnel Management Act and Article 25 (1) of the Military Personnel Management Act, this Act, we rejected this evidence to find otherwise.

However, the court below's rejection of Gap evidence 3-3 (OO) and the first instance court's rejection of the court below and the first instance court's rejection of the court below's rejection of the first instance court's rejection of the first instance court's determination on the air force Chief of Staff. In full view of the whole purport of the argument, the victim of this case's victim's non-party was a relatively excellent military cadets at the Air Force Chief of Staff at the time of completion of the Korea Air Force Academy on March 28, 1980, and the defendant of the above military academy who graduated from the same as the above was planned to be promoted as a temporary subrogation of April 1, 1984, prior to the conclusion of the court below's holding that the above officer was promoted as the above deceased at the time of the closure of the court's argument, unless there are any special circumstances, it should be deemed that at least the motives are promoted as the subrogation of the above regular salary grade, and the court below rejected all of the above facts without examining the facts that the above motive was unlawful.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

(A) On the second ground of appeal:

According to Articles 37 and 38 of the Military Pension Act, the Military Pension Act provides that the funds to operate the Military Pension Act shall be comprised of the contributions to be paid by the military personnel, the charges to be borne by the National Treasury, and the amount equivalent to 5/1000 of the monthly salary of the military personnel shall be paid to the National Treasury as contributions. Thus, in calculating losses equivalent to the daily retirement allowance that the deceased can receive due to the accident in this case, the amount that the deceased should pay to the National Treasury shall be deducted from the amount that the deceased should pay to the National Treasury as contributions

However, according to the records, it is clear that the defendant did not prove the deduction of the above contributions in the plaintiffs' claim for retirement allowance in the daily retirement allowance of this case until the closure of arguments in the fact-finding court, so it cannot be viewed as illegal by calculating the retirement allowance in the daily retirement allowance without the deduction.

(B) On the first ground for appeal:

In principle, unless there is any objective evidence that the amount of loss of the victim's future profits would have been increased in the future due to tort, it shall be calculated on the basis of the amount of profits earned by the victim from his occupation at the time of the occurrence of the damage caused by the tort. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the deceased non-party was the Air Force Corps at the time of the accident in this case, who was in the second grade of the Seoul University, and that the first grade of the year was considerably higher than 90 percent, and that the success rate of the graduate of the above medical school was above 90 percent per year, and that the above non-party did not have any special reason to the effect of the accident in this case, the court below determined that the above rate of loss was 90 percent of the deceased's total annual average income of the deceased's graduate from the above medical school, which was 65 years old, and that it was objectively determined that the above rate of loss of the deceased's graduate from the above medical school could not have been determined by the court below.

This paper is reasonable.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case to be tried and judged again is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)