A. The method of calculating the lost profit of an agricultural worker due to a tort, where the amount of wages increases between the time the accident occurred and the time the argument of the fact-finding court is concluded;

(b) Where the victim of a tort has received physical appraisal by the order of the court, and expenses directly have been paid, whether such compensation can be claimed as positive damages;

A. In calculating the lost profit amount of an agricultural worker injured by another person’s tort, if the amount of wages, which served as the basis of revenue, has been increased between the time when the accident occurred and the time when the final argument of the fact-finding court was closed, then the increased amount of wages at the time of the accident shall be based on the amount of wages at the time of the accident until the time when the accident occurred, but thereafter the increased amount of wages

B. In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by the tort of another person, even if the party directly paid for the appraisal in addition to the amount paid for the appraisal by the court order, since he/she received the physical appraisal from the court in accordance with the court order for appraisal, such amount is included in the costs of the lawsuit. Since the amount paid as the costs of the lawsuit can be repaid through the procedure for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be claimed as a separate affirmative damage.

(a) Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 6 of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act; Articles 100 and 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [profit of Lawsuit]

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu6761 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 350) (Gong1991, 961) 90Da16900 delivered on February 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 961) 94Da5105 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2797) B. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu803 delivered on March 10, 1987 (Gong1987, 632) 86Meu200 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1135)

Appellant-Appellee Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Gyeong-man et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Changwon District Court Decision 94Na2552 delivered on July 6, 1995

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to lost income and the part against the defendant as to expenses for medical treatment shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Changwon District Court.

All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal as to the dismissed portion shall be borne by each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of supplementary appeal stated in the supplementary appellate brief submitted after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief expires are examined to the extent of supplement in the grounds of appeal).

A. As to the first ground for appeal

In calculating the amount of lost profit of an agricultural worker injured by another person's illegal act, if the amount of wages, which serves as the basis of revenue, has been increased between the time when the accident occurred and the time when the final argument of the fact-finding court is closed, the amount of wages at the time of the accident shall be based on the amount of wages at the time of the accident, but thereafter the increased amount of wages shall be calculated based on the increased amount of wages (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da16900, Feb. 8, 1991).

According to the records, since the plaintiff suffered the accident in this case and the date of final pleading in the court below, it was obvious that the plaintiff continued to increase the daily wage for adult South Korea, and the plaintiff calculated the amount of damages based on the amount of wage raised as above at the court below and expanded the purport of the claim. Nevertheless, the court below calculated the plaintiff's daily income based on the rural daily wage around April 1990, which was around the time of the accident in this case. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the daily income, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the result of the judgment, and therefore, there is a reason to point this out.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, the court below's recognition of the plaintiff's maximum working age until he reaches 60 years of age is justified, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. There is no reason to discuss.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s attorney.

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In light of the records, the court below's finding that the plaintiff lost 100% ability due to the aftermath of injury caused by the accident in this case, while recognizing that the plaintiff needs to open a nursing by adult male for the purpose of regulating his active behavior due to the plaintiff's mental disorder, it is reasonable to accept that the court below's finding that there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. All arguments are without merit.

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages caused by a tort of another person, even if the party directly paid for the appraisal in addition to the amount under the order of the court for the appraisal, since he/she received the physical appraisal from the court in accordance with the order of appraisal, it is included in the cost of lawsuit corresponding to the cost of lawsuit. Since the amount paid as the cost of lawsuit can be repaid through the procedure for the determination of the amount of litigation costs under the provisions of the Costs of Civil Procedure Act after the judgment becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be claimed as a separate active damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu200, Jun. 9, 1987).

The court below determined that the amount of KRW 2,173,750 paid by the plaintiff to the medical center at the school of the tobacco generation was included in the medical expenses damage which the defendant is liable to compensate. However, according to the records, it is obvious that some of the medical expenses cited by the court below is the expenses paid to the above hospital in order to obtain the appraisal by entrusting the head of the hospital affiliated with the tobacco generation school with the physical appraisal of the plaintiff. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of the amount of damages, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment

3. Therefore, of the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to the lost income and the part against the defendant as to the cost of medical treatment for a period is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed part are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)