(a) The profit of those who attend the nursing course at the medical college or university at the time of an accident;

(b) Method of determining the loss rate of labor ability;

A. It is consistent with the empirical rules to view that the victims attending the second year of the nursing department at the time of the accident may graduate from the university unless there are special circumstances if they had not been involved in the accident, obtain a nurse's license, and engage in the occupational category.

B. In calculating the negative loss suffered by the victim of tort, the labor disability loss rate should not be a simple physical disability rate, but be reasonable and objective in accordance with experience rules, taking into account the victim’s age, degree of education, nature of previous occupation, career and level of technical knowledge, side and degree of physical disability, the possibility and probability of occupational change in similar occupation or other occupation, and other social and economic conditions.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74 delivered on April 27, 1988, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2731 delivered on March 14, 1989, Supreme Court Decision 88Meu15468 delivered on May 23, 1989 (Dong)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na4297 delivered on April 28, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

Considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendant's fault-off defense asserted on the premise that the deceased, the non-party, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 4, and the plaintiff 5 did not wear a safety bell is acceptable, and even if the contents of the injury suffered by the above victims are the same as the theory of the lawsuit, it shall not be presumed that the above victims did not wear a safety bell. Therefore, the argument of the lawsuit that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of incomplete deliberation and presumption of negligence in this part of the judgment below from the contrary standpoint is not acceptable. Therefore

With respect to the second ground:

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff 2 was attending the second year of the nursing department at ○ University at the time of the accident in this case. Thus, it is consistent with our experience rules to view that the plaintiff could graduate from the above university, obtain a nurse's license, and engage in the job category unless there was no special circumstance if the accident in this case occurred, and since the plaintiff was attending the second year of the nursing department at the university, his becoming a nurse shall not be deemed to obtain a special qualification or obtain a special skill. Therefore, it shall not be deemed to be erroneous in calculating his lost profit based on the wages of the nurse class under such opinion of the court below, and further, it shall not be deemed that the court below should have examined the graduation ratio of the graduate of the university department at the university and the rate at which the graduates can work in the professional occupational category.

In addition, the judgment of the party members of the theory of lawsuit (Supreme Court Decision 85Meu1954 delivered on February 25, 1986) cannot be appropriate in this case. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

With respect to the third point:

In calculating passive damages suffered by the victim of tort, the labor disability rate is not just physical disability rate, but also the victim's age, educational degree, nature of the previous occupation, career and level of technical disability, side and degree of physical disability, the possibility and probability of occupational change in similar occupation or other occupation, and the probability thereof, and other reasonable and objective labor disability rate in accordance with experience rules, taking into account all the social and economic conditions (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74, Apr. 27, 198; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2731, Mar. 14, 198; 88Meu15468, May 23, 1989). Thus, the court below's decision that the above physical disability rate cannot be determined by the court below as a result of the examination of physical disability of the plaintiff 2, 4, and 5's physical disability at school and the head of the above affiliated university or college's physical disability rate cannot be determined as a result of the examination of labor disability of the above general university or college's physical disability rate.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

With respect to the fourth point:

Considering all the circumstances revealed in this case, there is no argument to criticize the calculation amount of consolation money, since the amount of consolation money recognized by the court below seems to be unfairly excessive in light of empirical rules.

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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)