(b) The case holding that the judgment of the court below that there was no reduction of the title in the case where the victim lost 90 percent of the daily work ability and is unable to engage in almost all activities in daily life without opening due to the high-level brain functional disorder, and there was an error of violation of rules of evidence or insufficient reasoning

B. The plaintiff lost about 90% of daily work ability due to an accident, and the contents of the disability are impossible speech activities, high-level brain functional disorder, and scambenary paralysis, so if the behavior of almost all daily life without another person's opening, namely, meals, urines, sponsing and moving, etc., so if the plaintiff's opening is necessary, it would be difficult to enjoy the same life as the healthy person, unless it is presumed that the use is anticipated, and on this premise, it would be difficult for the plaintiff to enjoy the same life as the healthy person. In order to obtain the result of physical entrustment with the Chief of Seoul National University University Hospital, which has no reduction of life, the court below committed a violation of the rules of evidence without any reasonable explanation of the fact that the contents of the plaintiff's physical disability will be improved in the future, or if so, even if the plaintiff's physical disability is demanded for reasonable explanation that it can enjoy the same name as the average person regardless of the physical disability, and there is no reason to reject each other's evaluation result.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant's defense that the plaintiffs' claim for damages caused by the accident in this case was extinguished by the prescription period of three years after the plaintiffs became aware of the damages caused by the accident in this case and of the perpetrator. In other words, the court of first instance recognized the plaintiffs' right to claim damages and damages caused by the accident in this case by punishing the plaintiff 1's legal representative before the lapse of three years from June 5, 1987, and recognized that the plaintiff 2 and 3 were aware of the damages caused by the accident in this case. Meanwhile, the Korean Automobile Insurance Clause to which the defendant was a party provided that the above insurance company can directly engage in the resolution in this case to reduce the amount of damages upon the victim's consent and the insured's request, and that the above insurance company can act as proxy for the victim's right to claim damages from September 3, 1983 to August 27, 1986. Accordingly, the court of first instance recognized the plaintiffs' right to claim damages from the above insurance company to the insurance company's comprehensively agreed with the plaintiffs' right to claim.

If the facts of recognition of the first instance court cited by the lower court were to be justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interruption of representation and extinctive prescription, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc. In addition, the lower court’s measures that recognized the Plaintiffs’ negligence in the accident of this case and determined the scope of damages, are reasonable and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below adopted the result of physical examination of the first instance court as evidence, and acknowledged that Plaintiff 1's physical examination of the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital was an average person 6 years old and 59.38 years old at the time of the instant accident, and based on this, Plaintiff 1's physical examination of the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital was in need of opening care within the whole life due to severe brain damage, such as brain disorder, dialogue disorder, and scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic.

Recognizing that the court below's physical examination results of the Seoul National University Hospital Chief's physical examination entrusted to the plaintiff 1's life is as follows. With respect to the plaintiff 1's bodily injury and disability, the plaintiff 1's brain damage and thirrosis were suffering from traffic accidents, cerebral surgery was conducted, and cerebral injury and cerebral surgery was conducted. First, due to dialogic disorder, some of pulmonary pulmonary surgery can be understood as a severe disorder such as dialogic disorder, but it is rarely impossible to do daily life.Second, it is difficult to find out the pulmonary pulmonary function of the plaintiff 1 as an obstacle of high cerebral function, and thus, it is difficult to use it freely as a result of pulmonary pulmonary surgery, and it is not possible to use it as a result of pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary surgery, and thus, it is impossible to use it as a result of pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary pulmonary surgery at its own expense.

However, there is a question about the validity of the above appraisal commission. If the contents of the plaintiff 1's disability are almost all activities of daily life without another's opening, that is, meals, shipines, spawds, spawds, moving, etc. without another's opening, so if the contents of the plaintiff 1's disability are the attitudes to the extent that assistance of the opening is needed, it would be difficult to enjoy the same life as the healthy person even if it is presumed that the use is anticipated, and on the premise of this, if it is not, it would be in conformity with our rule of experience (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1079, Nov. 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 8Da23193, May 9, 198).

Therefore, it cannot be said that it is reasonable that there is no abnormal opinion on the self-nethy system, and that it is reasonable to expect life such as an average person just because brain function is normal.

Furthermore, according to the appraisal result of the appraiser Kim Jong-ok, which rejected without reasonable reasons, the court below found that the plaintiff 1's severe brain damage is in a situation where verbal activity is impossible, and that there is a need for overall instruction and supervision as a result of dianam power, understanding power, memory, judgment power, etc., and that there is no free activity in hand and an unsatisfy movement at hand and it is entirely impossible to lead a daily life due to the absence and unsatisfy, and that the rate of 10 percent of the emotional injury can be determined as 7 percent of the emotional injury in light of the above circumstances, since it is entirely impossible to lead a daily life due to serious brain injury after the death of the plaintiff 1, but it is not possible to accurately determine the reduction period. According to the reference material announced by scholars, the plaintiff 1 can be presumed to have reduced the name of 6 percent in case of severe brain damage to the plaintiff 1's body before the death of the plaintiff 1, and it can be said that the 17 percent of the emotional injury of the plaintiff 1 is more feasible.

After all, the court below's decision that Plaintiff 1's current health condition, as recognized by the court below, can enjoy the same life expectancy as the average person under our rule of experience, in order to obtain a physical entrustment result that there is a difficult point in view of our rule of experience and thus, it is necessary to explain that the contents of the above recognition's physical disability are likely to be improved in the future or that the above recognition can enjoy the same name as the average person regardless of such physical disability, but the court below's decision that adopted only the appraisal result that shows that there is no validity and rejection of evidence that can only be opposed to the above recognition's physical disability and that there is an error of law by the rules of evidence or the lack of reason. This is because it is a reasonable ground to discuss as it falls under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, among the part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part concerning the property damage against the plaintiff 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)