A. Whether the court of appeal that received the reversal and return has changed the lawsuit

(b) Whether the amount of loss of future income of a person who engages in a particular company's major can be calculated based on the ordinary wage of the general major;

A. The argument that the appellate court, which received the reversal and return, re-convened, is nothing more than the resumption and continuation of the previous argument, and the parties can submit the means of change of the scope of appeal, change of the lawsuit, or new attack and defense until the closing of argument, which may result in unfavorable consequences than the judgment prior to the remand. Therefore, the appellate court shall not conduct a trial only to the extent of objection against the judgment prior to the remand.

B. In calculating damages for loss of import of a victim who lost his/her ability to work due to a tort, barring any special circumstance, in cases where the victim engages in a certain occupation at the time of loss of his/her ability to work, it is reasonable to calculate the amount of loss of import based on the income that he/she would have obtained or could obtain from his/her occupation, barring any special circumstance. Thus, in cases where calculating the amount of loss of import based on the income that he/she would have obtained from transfer of occupation in the future, as in this case, if the amount of loss of future import of the plaintiff, who is a major of the non-party company A, is calculated based

Articles 395, 385, and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Meu55 delivered on June 8, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellant No. 10

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na3729 delivered on September 21, 1981

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

Inasmuch as the appellate court, which received the remand, has no substantial resumption or continuation of the previous pleadings, the parties may submit the means of change of the scope of appeal, change of litigation, or new attack and defense until the closing of pleadings, it would result in unfavorable consequences compared to the judgment prior to remand, and thus, the appellate court does not render a trial on the case prior to remand only to the extent of objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da1664, Dec. 23, 1969). Accordingly, the appellate court’s decision with the same purport does not hold a trial on the case prior to remand only to the extent of objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da1664, Dec.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the judgment of the court below, in calculating the Plaintiff’s loss of import due to the instant accident, the court below acknowledged that at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was engaged as a major in internal medicine of the non-party 199, and on the premise that at least 236,750 won (9,470 won X 25) per month was able to obtain the income of at least 236,750 won (9,470 won) until the completion of the age of 55, which is within the average name of the Plaintiff if the instant accident had not occurred.

However, in calculating damages for loss of import of a victim who lost his/her ability to work due to a physical injury caused by a tort, it shall be reasonable to calculate profits from his/her occupation, unless there are special circumstances, if the victim engages in a certain occupation at the time of loss of his/her ability to work. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to profit from loss of import, or in the misapprehension of legal reasoning as to profit from loss of import without sufficient deliberation and explanation as to whether the possibility of changing his/her occupation due to a general internal major in the absence of the accident in this case is probable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu55, Jun. 8, 1982) on the basis of wages of the general internal major in the absence of the accident in this case.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)