If the function as a teacher has reduced by 30 percent, loss of profit;

Even if the victim's function as a teacher of a national school was reduced by approximately 30 percent due to injury, if he/she is in the position as a teacher of a national school and receives the same salary as that of the previous national school until the closing of argument after injury, the loss of expected income cannot be recognized unless it is proven that the income will be reduced in the future.

Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1448 delivered on November 11, 1975 (Article 750 (227) 537 of the Civil Act, Article 393 (70) 994 of the Civil Procedure Act, Court Gazette 526 of the summary of the decision and the summary of the decision

Plaintiff 1 and nine others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (66A1717) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 66Da1717)

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 120,000 won with an amount equal to five percent per annum from October 17, 1966 to the full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the appeal by the defendant against the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. shall be dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the sum of five minutes of the litigation costs incurred between the defendant and the plaintiff 1 shall be added to both the first and second trials, and one shall be borne by the defendant, and the cost of appeal incurred between the plaintiff excluding the above plaintiff 1 and the other plaintiff 1 shall be borne by the defendant.

The legal representative of the plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 1 1,30,785 won and 100,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 3,4,5,6,7,7,8,9, and 20,000 won, respectively, and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from October 17, 196 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall revoke the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment against the plaintiff 1.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 300,00 and an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from October 17, 1966 to the full payment.

The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, and the defendant's litigation performer shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff et al.

(1) On October 16, 196, 196.10 1:6.10, 1.00, 1.00 1:6.00 m. and 6.00 m. m. 1:00 m. m., to get a train on the 7th line, the plaintiff 1 was injured by collision with the train m. 6m. m. on the 6th line. The 1m. m. 5m. m. m. 1m. m. 5m. m. 8m. m. 1m. 8m. m. 1m. 5m. m. 1m. 1m. 8m. m. 1m. 8m. 1m. 8m. 1m. m. 5m. m. 8m. m. 8m. m. 1m. m. 8m. m. 8m. m. 1m. m.

As above, an engineer or a steering boat engaged in the connection work of a train is not connected due to the breakdown of a vehicle connecting machine, and it is anticipated that the train might be cut off at the time of the contact, and it is necessary to conduct the work after checking whether there is an obstacle on the line under the contact, and ascertaining that there is no obstacle. Furthermore, even if the contact is not made, it is necessary to check the connecting device before the contact of the train, and take all necessary measures to prevent the collision from being cut alone despite the shock at the time of the contact, and even if there is a duty of care to prevent the collision, it can be recognized that the collision accident occurred due to the negligence in the course of duty due to the negligence in the course of duty not fulfilling the above duty of care.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to compensate for damages caused by illegal acts during the performance of his duties.

On the other hand, in the case of the above, although the plaintiff 1 could have known that the entrance exchange work of the train was in progress on the 6th line due to the noise of lighting lights and engine cars within the station, it cannot be said that the plaintiff 1 was connected to the failure of the connecting machine (not a water crossing) and did not connect the 6th line to the failure of the connecting machine (not a water crossing), and it can be seen by the evidence before the fact that the plaintiff 1 suffered the injury due to the shock of the vehicle No. 5180 on the 6th line, which was moving on the 6th line on the back of the station line, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff 1 has a group of responsibility for the collision.

Therefore, it should be considered when determining the defendant's damages after the above mistake of the plaintiff.

(2) To examine the amount of damages

(A) According to the testimony of the non-party 4, the plaintiff 1 was hospitalized at the center of Seocheon-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City in order to treat the injury caused by the above accident on October 16, 196 and the treatment was made until November 8, 196 of the same year, and the cost of the treatment can be acknowledged that the amount of KRW 34,000 is required. Thus, the defendant is obliged to compensate the plaintiff 1 for the material damage.

However, considering the above negligence of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to determine the defendant's amount of compensation in 20,000 won.

The plaintiff claimed 96,785 won due to the loss of expected import in addition to the above recognition, and caused the loss of 50% of normal working ability due to the accident, the plaintiff 1 is expected to lose 50% of normal working ability due to the accident. In the future, a decrease in income of 5,250 won, a half of the monthly income of 10,500 won as a teacher of a national school who is employed at that time, and such loss will continue for 290 months from the time of the accident (65 years of age for teacher retirement) from the time of the accident to the age of 63 (65 years of age), so the defendant is liable to compensate for the loss of exhibition after deducting the intermediate interest of 5% per annum pursuant to the Hofman's Calculation Act.

According to the appraiser non-party 5's appraisal result, the plaintiff is cured by the implementation of a stable price for a long period of time, but the left-hand spawal is light, and snow in the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the inside of the case is gymmetricly gymmetricly, but it is generally impossible to recover the above function as a teacher of a national school, compared to the injury, it can be recognized that the function as a teacher of a national school has been reduced by approximately 30 percent even if any medical treatment is performed in the future.

However, damage from loss of expected profit due to a tort is possible to claim the damage only if the profit which the victim had already gained at the time of the accident is not practically realized due to injury or it is expected that the profit would have been reduced at any time in the future. However, the plaintiff 1 is serving as the teacher of the Geumcheon-gun National School of Sucheon-gun who had been employed before the injury until January 11, 1968, after the injury was injured, and the plaintiff 1 is receiving the same salary as the previous one, and it is recognized by the plaintiff himself, and it is not possible to recognize the loss of expected profit due to the injury unless there is a proof that the plaintiff would decrease the income as a teacher who would be caused by the injury in the future. The plaintiff's argument in this regard is without merit.

(B) We examine the claim for consolation money.

The mental suffering caused by the plaintiff 1's injury can be easily recognized that the plaintiff 1's wife, the plaintiff 2, and the other plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 1's children, who can be recognized by the plaintiff 1's written evidence No. 1, as well as the plaintiff 1's wife, who is the plaintiff 1's wife, are also serious about them. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay them with a considerable amount of money. Considering the educational degree and property status of the plaintiff 1, which can be known by the non-party 6's testimony, the degree and degree of the plaintiff 1's negligence and injury, and other various circumstances shown in the oral argument, it is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff 1, 100, 300,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 10,000 won to the other plaintiff 2, respectively.

Therefore, the claim of this lawsuit is the consolation money of 120,00 won plus the material damage and consolation money of 30,000 won by Plaintiff 2, and the part against Plaintiff 30,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 won per annum from October 17, 1966, to the full payment rate of 5% per annum, and the remainder shall be dismissed to the extent that the plaintiff 2,3,4,5,5,6,7,8,9,9, and the appeal of Plaintiff 1 against Plaintiff 1 is just, and the part against Defendant 1 is partially unfair, and it shall be modified to the extent that the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, and the part against Defendant 1 shall be applied by Articles 89, 92, 93, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to bear the costs of lawsuit as stated in the original judgment.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)