The legitimacy of deeming that the victim would immediately engage in future urban daily work in the event that it is impossible to engage in the previous occupation due to a partial loss of labor ability.

Even if it was impossible to engage in the previous occupation due to the aftermath disability, such fact alone cannot be presumed to be the amount equivalent to the daily wage for urban day, and only if there are special circumstances that it is difficult to engage in the future occupation or occupation with more income than the daily wage for urban day and it is anticipated that it would be inevitable to engage in daily work, his future income is the amount equivalent to the daily wage for urban day.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2159 Decided May 27, 1986

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na693 delivered on July 4, 1986

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was physically healthy as 21 years of age 21 and 45 years of age at the time of the accident, and the average male life of the same age x 10,372 won per day as average wage from November 1, 1984 to 20 years of age x 5 months of age 80 months of age, and the plaintiff was suffering from 10,372 won per day as 5 months of age. The plaintiff was suffering from the accident of this case after the accident of this case x 40.5 days of age x 40.5 days of age x 9 days of age 20 days of age x 9 days of age 5 days of age 40 days of age x 40 days of age x 9 days of age 50 days of age x 9 days of age 5 days of age x 40 days of age x 9 days of age x 9 days of age 50 days of age of urban accident.

However, even if the plaintiff could not work for the previous original time due to the above-mentioned after disability, it cannot be presumed that his future income is the amount equivalent to the labor wages for urban day only because of that fact. The plaintiff can be presumed to be the amount equivalent to his future income only when there are special circumstances that it is difficult for the plaintiff to engage in an occupation or occupation with more income than his future wage for urban day and it is expected that he will be engaged in daily work.

However, the court below did not examine whether there are special circumstances that the plaintiff is unable to engage in an occupation or occupation which has more income than the future daily wages, and decided that his future income is the amount equivalent to the labor wages for urban day, and that the amount of loss of profit should be as stated in its decision without examining whether there is a special circumstance that the plaintiff is unable to engage in an occupation or occupation which is more income than the future daily wages for urban day. The decision of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of profit of expectation, incomplete hearing, and violation of the rules of evidence, and

Meanwhile, while the Defendant did not appeal against the entire part of the judgment below against the Defendant, it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to consolation money.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant are without merit. Therefore, the costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)