Where only the part against the plaintiff on the passive damage case was reversed and remanded, the scope of the judgment of the court remanded;

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to passive damages is reversed, and the remaining appeals are dismissed, the scope of the judgment of the court below after remand is limited to the part against the plaintiffs as to passive damages and the part extended by the court below after remand, and the part in favor of the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court below before remand becomes final and conclusive, and the court below

Articles 377, 385, 395, and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1327 delivered on November 14, 1978 (Gong1979, 11629) Supreme Court Decision 82Nu89 delivered on June 22, 1982 (Gong1982, 709) Supreme Court Decision 90Da18036 delivered on May 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 1727) Supreme Court Decision 91Da18132 delivered on November 22, 1991 (Gong192, 262)

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jeonbuk Passenger Transport Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Yong-han, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Supreme Court Decision 93Da8238 delivered on June 14, 1994

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Na4850 delivered on November 24, 1995

The part of the judgment of the court below ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay an amount equivalent to 5% per annum from February 2, 1990 to December 28, 1992 with respect to the amount of 43,819,898 won and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 2, 45,729,847 won, and 43,819,898 won per annum from February 2, 1990 to December 28, 1992, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The lawsuit concerning the above part was terminated by the Supreme Court Decision 93Da8238 Decided June 14, 1994. All of the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the first, second, and third points

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, it is reasonable for the court below to have determined that the degree of proof as to expected income in the future is more specific and reliable income that the victim can obtain by reducing it than the degree of proof of past facts, but it is sufficient to prove income with considerable probability within the extent that it does not lose rationality and objectivity as a proof of income. However, upon examining the relevant evidence based on the records, the court below's determination that the annual monthly allowance and operating allowance are not based on the calculation of the lost income or the lost retirement allowance is just, and there is no ground to recognize the increase of financial research expenses on the ground that the business allowance is excluded from the calculation basis, and this does not have any ground to acknowledge the increase of financial research expenses. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles due to the failure to exercise of right to know, incomplete deliberation, or violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

All grounds of appeal pointing out this point are not acceptable.

On the fourth ground

The judgment of the court of first instance rejected all of the plaintiffs' claims against the above 9.2 plaintiffs' damages by negligence of the non-party 2, but the court below's judgment prior to remanding 142,757,613 won, retirement allowance of the deceased 10,612,000 won, and 10,000 won for the deceased 10,000 won, and 2, 300 won and 9.6% of the remaining damages of the plaintiff 16.6% of the total damages of the plaintiff 1,000 won and 9.6% of the total damages of the plaintiff 1,000 won and 9.6% of the above damages of the plaintiff 2 were remanded to the above 9.6% of the total damages of the plaintiff 1,00,000 won and 1,000 won, 1,000 won, 1636% of the total damages of the plaintiff 1's damages damages of 1,000 won and 16.6% of the remaining damages of the plaintiff

First, after the above remand judgment, there was no room for dispute as to the existence of liability for damages, and since the defendant did not see at all about the calculation method of the lost profit, it cannot be seen that the dispute about the scope of liability for damages is reasonable. Thus, the above plaintiffs asserted that the cited amount should apply the interest rate prescribed in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Cases Concerning Legal Proceedings") based on the date the judgment of the court below was rendered before remand, but since the cited amount increased more than the claimed amount of the judgment of the court below before remanding, the above plaintiffs extended their claims after remand, and thus the cited

However, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to passive damages before remanding is reversed, and the remaining appeals are dismissed, and the scope of the judgment of the court below after remanding is limited to the part against the plaintiffs as to passive damages, and the part in favor of the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court below before remanding. Thus, the court below cannot conduct a review on this part (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da18036, May 24, 1991).

Nevertheless, the court below extended the cited amount of the judgment of the court below prior to remanding including the part in favor of the plaintiffs which became final and conclusive as to passive damages, while applying the rate of 5% per annum from the date of the original judgment after remanding the interest in arrears to the date of the sentence of the court below, thereby changing damages for delay to the cited amount of the judgment of the court below prior to remand to the plaintiffs disadvantageously.

Therefore, among the claims on passive damages of this case, 65,729,847 won [142,757,613 won + 10,612,031 won] x 3/7] 2, and 3 respectively 43,819,898 won [142,757,613 won + 10,612,031 won] x 2/7% per annum from February 2, 1990 to December 28, 192, 5% per annum from the next day to December 14, 1992, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of remand. Thus, the judgment of the court below as to the above part is reversed, and the remaining part of the lawsuit is dismissed, and all of the appeals of the plaintiffs are dismissed and all of the appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)