[1] The standard for calculating the lost income of the victim who died of a traffic accident (=the profit at the time of the accident) and whether the profit at the time of the increase in the future should be considered in calculating the lost income (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the court below's measure of calculating the lost income of the victim who died from a traffic accident is justified on the ground that the materials that can be recognized as the income in calculating the lost income of the victim, which were withdrawn at the time of the closing of argument, are limited to the report on the actual status of wages by occupation in the year 190 close to the date of the accident and that the materials in the year 191 and 1992 cannot be found

[1] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu6761 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 350), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu3130 Decided June 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 1468), Supreme Court Decision 91Da1370 Decided April 23, 199 (Gong191, 1469)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Ha-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (the maximum attorney of the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 92Na17334 delivered on December 2, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(1) Judgment on the first ground for appeal

The court below determined that the ratio of negligence of the above deceased was 25% in determining the scope of the defendant's damages on the ground that the victim's non-party is also recognized as negligence as stated in its reasoning in the accident of this case. In light of the records, the contents of the above deceased's negligence recognized by the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles due to incomplete deliberation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and the ratio of negligence set-off by the court below also is acceptable and it does not seem to be contrary to justice and equity. The argument

(2) Judgment on the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the plaintiffs' assertion that the above deceased was paid KRW 1,100,000 per month at the workplace at the time of the accident, and the decision of the court below that calculated the lost income of the above deceased based on the monthly average wage of the occupation similar to the occupation of the above deceased in the report of the fact-finding of wages by occupation published by the Ministry of Labor is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, nor any error of mistake due to incomplete deliberation,

In addition, in case of calculating the lost income of the victim who died from a traffic accident as in this case, in principle, the profit at the time of the accident should be the basis of the profit at the time of the accident. If objective data are clearly predicted to increase the lost income of the deceased, the profit to be increased in the future should be considered in calculating the lost income. However, the material that can be recognized in calculating the lost income of the victim of this case is withdrawn at the time of the closing of argument is limited to the wage status survey report by occupation in 1990 (No. 3-2), which is close to the date of the accident, and the material of 191, 1992 cannot be found (the defendant submitted a part of the wage status survey report by occupation in 191 as the evidence No. 4-1, 2, but this is omitted, and the court below's measure to calculate the lost income of the victim based on the former cannot be deemed to be unlawful due to a mistake of facts, such as the right to know the actual income of the victim.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

(3) Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)