1. Maximum working age of individual taxi drivers;

2. Calculation standards for lost profits in cases of increasing profits of the victims after the time of tort;

1. Since the driving of an individual taxi cannot be deemed as a minor work rather than daily work, it is reasonable to view that the maximum working age can be employed until he/she reaches the age of 55.

2. In principle, the calculation of lost profit due to a tort shall be based on the victim's profit at the time of the tort. If there are special circumstances that increase the victim's profit after the tort, it shall be based only on the increased profit when the perpetrator knew or could have known the situation.

Articles 393(2), 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 148 decided Jan. 6, 1948 (Law No. 393(1) 383, 7384)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Absia Transportation Limited Partnership

Gwangju District Court (79Gahap407)

Supreme Court Decision 81Meu86 Decided December 8, 1981

Of each passive property damage against the plaintiffs in the original judgment, the defendant revoked the part against the defendant who ordered plaintiffs 1 and 2 to pay the plaintiffs 5,022,978 won with an interest of 5% per annum from September 30, 1979 to the full payment date, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revoked part.

The plaintiffs' appeals and the defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed, respectively.

The total costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into two parts, one of which shall be borne by the defendant and the other by the plaintiffs respectively.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 the amount of 29,489,926.5 won, the amount of 19,659,951 won, and the amount of 19,659,951 won and each of the above amounts at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day following the service of the copy soar to the day of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution (the extension to the first instance).

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 14,020,233.5 won of each money, and to the plaintiff 3 9,346,82 won of the money and each of the above money at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day after the notice of the copy soar to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (O. 1), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (O. 3), Eul evidence Nos. 8-3 (O. 4,7 (Examination of Suspect), evidence No. 9-2 ( Indictment), and evidence Nos. 8-2 (not including the part not trusted in front) of the same evidence No. 8-2 (O. 8), Non-party 1, an employee of the defendant company, is driving a dump truck on the right side of the defendant company and operating the dump truck at the speed of approximately 65 kilometers of the front side of the defendant company with a height of 5 kilometers No. 2 (O. 2) and the whole purport of oral argument No. 8-2 (O. 8:30 of Feb. 17, 1979).

Therefore, the defendant is a person who operates an automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and is responsible for compensating for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

The defendant argued that the accident in this case occurred due to the collision between the above vehicle owned by the defendant and the taxi operated by the non-party 2 on the roadway, and the accident occurred due to the fault of driving the two vehicles. Thus, according to the above evidence, the accident location in this case is about 30 degrees, which is the second line road in which the passage of the vehicle is frequent. The accident location in this case is about 50 degrees, so it was difficult for the plaintiff 1, the driver of the vehicle owned by the defendant, even though it is within 54 kilometers a speed of 65 kilometers a speed, was in operation at the speed of the speed of 65 kilometers and was in operation of the above Hand, and was in operation of the above Hand, and was in operation of the vehicle in the opposite line, and was in operation with the opposite line, the accident location in this case should be taken into consideration in determining the number of damages. Thus, the part of the above fact of collision with the non-party 2's normal operation of the vehicle in this case can not be found to be contrary to the evidence 208 (excluding the above).

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case occurred by unilateral negligence of the number of driving vehicles owned by the defendant, and it cannot be deemed that the negligence of the non-party 2 competes with it, and there is no other evidence to recognize the negligence of the non-party 2, so the defendant's defense is groundless.

2. Scope of damages.

In full view of the purport of the argument as above, it is recognized that the deceased non-party 2 was physically healthy male at the time of the accident as of December 5, 1927, and that the average male life of 51 years is 20 years old. The facts that the non-party 2's monthly living cost is 70,000 won is no dispute between the parties, and Gap evidence No. 4 (business Registration Certificate) and Eul evidence No. 5 (No. 8-1) were no other dispute about the establishment, and it is recognized that the non-party 2 was a non-party 3 witness at the time of the above accident, and the non-party 2 was a non-party 4,5, and the non-party 2 was a non-party 6 witness at the time of the above accident, and the non-party 2 was a non-party 3 witness at the time of the above accident, and it is recognized that the non-party 2 was a non-party 5's average non-party 3 driver's license of the above case.

Although the Plaintiffs asserted that Nonparty 2 could be engaged in the operation of a private taxi until the age of 65, it is insufficient to recognize that Nonparty 2 could be engaged in the operation of a private taxi until the age of 65 only by Nonparty 2’s statement of evidence No. 7 (U.S. public notice) and the testimony of the above witnesses by the time of 65. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, unless there was no accident in this case, for 57 months from the time of death to November 1, 1983, 55 years from the time of the death of the special group, barring any special group, Nonparty 2 obtained the income of 393,60 won (23,00 won x 25-575,000 won x 25-5,200 won + 2,200 won + 7,00 won + 7,00 won + 7,00 won + 181,40 won + 181,00 won + 575,00-181,400 won x 393,600 won) from the time of death of the accident in this case. It shall be deemed that Nonparty 2 lost the income due to the death of the accident in this case.

The plaintiffs claim damages for the above lost profits as of the date of the above accident on a one-time basis. Since the total amount of interest calculated at the present price at the time of the accident is 20,091,915 won (=393,600 won x 51.04653260) by deducting the interim interest at the rate of five percent per annum from the total amount of such interest, the defendant is liable for compensating for the same amount to the non-party 2 (the plaintiff is liable for compensating for the same amount because the taxi fee was increased twice after the accident in this case). However, since there are no special circumstances that increase in the actual profit at the time of the tort in this case, the plaintiff's calculation of the lost profit due to the tort should be based on the victim's profit at the time of the tort in principle, since there is no special circumstance that the perpetrator might have known or should have known only when the victim was at the time of the accident in this case, it can be determined based on the special circumstance that the defendant raised the actual profit at the time of the accident in this case.

However, since the plaintiffs are co-inheritors of non-party 2, they jointly inherited the right to claim compensation for the above recognition against the defendant of non-party 2. If they are divided according to their statutory shares of inheritance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 each money of KRW 7,534,468 (=20,091,915 won x 3/8 respectively x 3/8) and to the plaintiff 3 5,022,978 won (=20,091,91,915 won x 2/8).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from September 30, 1979 to September 30, 1979 to the date following the delivery of the copy of the gusheet to the defendant as requested by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 of each money, 7,534,468 won, and 5,022,978 won, and each of the above money to the plaintiffs 3 of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is unfair to accept each claim, and the remaining claims are dismissed. Since some of the original judgment which has different conclusions is unfair and reasonable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and all of the plaintiffs' appeal and the remaining appeals are dismissed as without merit. The plaintiff's appeal corresponding to the revoked part of the judgment and the defendant's appeal are dismissed as follows. Two minutes of all costs of all lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder of the defendant's provisional execution is attached to each order of the defendant.

Judges Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)