Cases
2018Da286369 Compensation (i.e., son)
Appellant and Appellee
1. A;
2. B
3. C.
4. D;
[Judgment of the court below]
Defendant Appellee et al.
person
E Federation
Law Firm Barun (Attorney Lee Jae-soo in charge)
The judgment below
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Na14662 Decided October 11, 2018
Imposition of Judgment
May 16, 2019
Text
The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to lost income damages shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.
All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds of appeal on the computation of lost earnings of the Plaintiffs, the lower court calculated the monthly income of the Deceased at KRW 13,077,556, based on its stated reasoning, and calculated the lost income amount of KRW 11,932,989, which was calculated by deducting the income tax of KRW 1,144,567, based on the premise that the deceased’s monthly income was the lost income of the deceased.
However, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s decision that calculated the lost income amount on the premise that the amount of income tax deducted from the deceased’s income amount is the lost income.
The amount of profit which a person loses all or part of his/her operating capacity due to a tort against life or body is the total appraised value of his/her operating capacity that the victim lost, and the amount of such profit shall be deemed as not deducting the amount of taxes, including income tax, from such income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18807, Jun. 13, 2003).
In calculating the deceased’s lost income, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as seen earlier, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.
2. As to the grounds of appeal on the Plaintiffs’ limitation of liability, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, deemed the deceased’s fault ratio to 40% and limited the Defendant’s liability ratio to 60%. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors affecting the conclusion
3. As to the grounds of appeal on the maximum working age of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the lower court acknowledged the deceased’s maximum working age until he/she reaches the age of 65.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on maximum working age, thereby affecting the judgment.
4. As to the grounds of appeal on the Defendant’s calculation of lost income, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the deceased’s performance of work at two places of business was compatible with one another, and calculated the lost income by summing up the incomes accrued while performing the work. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unlawful income and the calculation of lost income, thereby adversely affecting
5. Conclusion
Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to lost income damages is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant's appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench
Judges
Justices Kim Jae-soo
Justices Kim Jong-il
Chief Justice Lee Dong-won
Justices Park Il-san