[1] The case where it can be calculated on the basis of statistical income, not actual income, which is a victim's actual income, which was a certain amount of income at the time of an accident

[2] The requirements for calculating the lost income in case where the victim of a tort concurrently engages in business falling under two or more sources of revenue, including all amounts of loss of revenue in each category of business

[3] The case where it can be seen that there was a loss of labor ability due to an abstract disorder caused by appearance

[1] In a case where the victim had been working at the workplace at the time of the accident, and where objective data exists to determine the actual income at the time of the accident to the victim, and thus reasonable and objective expected income can be calculated, the actual income should be calculated on the basis of the actual income at the time of the accident. If statistical income such as the report on the basic statistical survey of the wage structure is higher than the actual income, the daily income should be calculated on the basis of such statistical income only in a case where there are special circumstances where it is acknowledged that the actual income would have been higher than the actual income at the time of the accident, the daily income should be calculated on the basis of such statistical income.

[2] If the victim of a tort concurrently engages in business falling under two or more sources at the time of the accident, in light of the nature of each business or the type of work, etc., his/her business affairs are compatible independently and separately, and if the victim is not actually engaged in only one business, he/she may calculate the lost income of the victim by individually evaluating the lost income of each type of business.

[3] In a case where a subsequent disability caused by an illegal act causes an abstract injury to external appearance, even if the fact alone does not immediately cause an obstacle to physical activity function, if the trend has a significant impact on future employment, job selection, promotion, possibility of change of occupation, etc. in relation to the injured party's sex, age, etc., it cannot be said that there exists a loss of labor ability due to the abstract disorder. Thus, it is reasonable to view that there exists a loss of labor ability due to the abstract disorder.

[1] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da36524 delivered on December 6, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 202), Supreme Court Decision 2001Da29001 delivered on July 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 1956) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da36507 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 277), Supreme Court Decision 99Da1808 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong200Sang, 333) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da3918 delivered on May 10, 191 (Gong191, 1605) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 200Da393979 delivered on August 139, 191 (Gong194, 194).

Plaintiff

National taxi Transport Business Federation (Attorney Jeong Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2003Na1083 delivered on June 18, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that in light of the fact that the plaintiff sustained serious injuries to the inside part and body of the accident in this case, and that the front glass of the driver's seat of the vehicle involved in the accident was damaged, the plaintiff could be inferred to drive the vehicle without wearing the safety belt at the time of the accident, and thus the plaintiff's negligence should be taken into account. In light of the circumstances of the accident and the degree of shock, the plaintiff suffered injuries to the inside part, etc., and the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was damaged to the front part of the driver's seat of the vehicle involved in the accident, and that there was no other evidence to support this.

In light of the records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where the victim had been working at the workplace at the time of the accident and had a certain amount of income, if objective data exists to determine the actual income at the time of the accident and can calculate the reasonable and objectivity expectation income based thereon, the actual income shall be calculated on the basis of the actual income at the time of the accident. If the statistical income such as the statistical survey report on the basic statistical survey on the wage structure is higher than the actual income, the actual income shall be calculated on the basis of the actual income at the time of the accident, and if the special circumstance of the group is acknowledged that the actual income would have a higher amount of statistical income than the actual income at the time of the accident, it shall be calculated on the basis of such statistical income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da36524, Dec. 6, 196).

According to the records, from October 16, 1992 to September 29, 194, the Plaintiff served as a safety transportation company from May 9, 199 to the time of the instant accident as a separate taxi engineer. From November 1, 1999 to January 31, 200, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 2,117,846 from the safety transportation company prior to the instant accident, and received a total of KRW 2,17,846 from the safety transportation company, and calculated the income by directly acquiring a certain amount of taxi commission. Thus, the Plaintiff’s salary received from the said company at the time of the instant accident is acceptable based on the amount of money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on the basis of an agreement with the company as taxi commission, and the Plaintiff’s actual income was merely paid to the Plaintiff on the basis of the amount of money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff on the basis of the average amount of money paid by the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff’s wage was actually received from the company.

On the other hand, if the victim of a tort concurrently engages in business falling under two or more sources at the time of the accident, in light of the nature of each business or the type of work, etc., his/her business affairs may be compatible independently from one another, and in cases where the victim is not actually engaged in only one business, he/she may calculate the lost income of the victim by individually evaluating the lost income of each type of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da36507, Dec. 12, 1997; 99Da18008, Nov. 26, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff worked as a taxi engineer as above, while operating the insurance agency with the trade name of light-name agency from March 18, 1995 to the time of the accident in this case, the amount of fees belonging to the year 199 was 17,368,386 won in total, and the standard income rate recognized by the National Tax Service in the case of insurance agencies is 35.2% inasmuch as the standard income rate recognized by the National Tax Service in the case of insurance agencies is 35.2%, the court below determined that the plaintiff could have raised income of KRW 509,472 in each month calculated by multiplying the fees belonging to the portion insurance agency belonging to the year 199 by the standard income rate, and the above calculation was made based on monthly average income of KRW 1,284,070 in total as seen above.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to lost income as alleged.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In a case where a subsequent disability caused by an illegal act causes a drilling to external appearance, such fact alone does not cause an obstacle to the immediate physical activity function, even if it is not sufficient physical activity function of the injured party, and where such trend is considerably likely to affect future employment, job selection, promotion, possibility of transfer, etc., it shall not be deemed that there exists a loss of labor ability due to the abstract disorder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Da9773, Aug. 27, 1991).

In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the labor disability ratio of the plaintiff is 15% by considering the physical disability rate in accordance with the criteria for the physical disability grade table in attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act and the gender, age, etc. of the plaintiff as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assessment of the labor disability rate as alleged.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)