On the first ground for appeal

The court below acknowledged the ratio of loss of the plaintiff leak-gu's aftermath disability and the loss of the operation ability, based on the result of the physical appraisal commission to the head of the Busan University Hospital (the draft department) of the court below, there is an internal and chronic disorder that the above plaintiff suffered from two parts and brain damage, and in detail, the total sum of the side of the side of the leak-gu in the leak-gu was 78%, and the rate of loss of the Si efficiency in the leak-gu in the leak-gu in the leak-gu in the eleak-gu in the eleak-gu in the 110th, and the Si efficiency in the leak-gu in the leak-gu in the eleak-gu in the eleak-gu in the eleak-gu in the 77%, and there

In light of the above physical appraisal results, the plaintiff's correction trial ability in both fields is 0.9, so it is a general test rule or experience rule that there is no impediment to daily life or daily labor. Moreover, in applying the physical disability rating under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act and the physical disability grade table under the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, in principle, correction trial ability is measured, and the above marks are defined as physical disability only when the trial ability is less than 0.6.6, it cannot be viewed that there was loss of labor force recognized by the court below. However, as seen above, the above disability of the plaintiff is a part of both sides, and therefore, the court below also recognized the rate of loss of labor ability caused by cloddroid method. There is no reason to argue that the above disability of the plaintiff is nothing more than a decrease of trial ability, and each standard of physical disability under the State Compensation Act or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, which is cited by the court below, and there is no reason to find that the above rate of loss of labor ability is nothing more than the above criteria.

In addition, the argument also argues that the above plaintiff was not a site for injury in both parts, and that the loss of labor force of 31% due to cerebral injury is recognized, and that the loss of 31% due to cerebral injury should also be deemed to be included in the nephical mathy aftermathy. However, since the nephical mathy disorder recognized by the court below is a two parts of nephical mathy, donation, memory disorder, emotional disorder, and concentrated disorder, it cannot be deemed to include another nephy that is irrelevant to this.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the incomplete hearing, such as the theory of lawsuit, in violation of the rules of experience or the rules of evidence, or in evaluation of the loss rate of labor ability.

On the second ground for appeal

In addition, the court below recognized that the above plaintiff suffered from the death of the fetus in the womb and the aftermathal disability in the womb, which fell under the provisions on miscarriage and assistance in the beer list, and thus lost 15% labor ability.

However, the rate of loss of labor ability is the rate of loss of labor ability due to the aftermath disability, and the aftermath disability here refers to the loss of physical function remaining after recovery or elimination after treatment of acute symptoms in the early stage of the disease or injury. However, it cannot be said that the death of a fetus in the womb or the pathy illness as cited by the court below is the aftermath disability in the above meaning.

In addition, according to the result of the physical examination of the court below employed by the court below in recognizing the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the above plaintiff was pregnant 32 weeks - 33 prudent conditions, and there was no obvious mountain converging, nor did it correspond with the fetus death or her own crucing crucing, but there was a loss of 15% labor ability in applying mutatis mutandis the items related to miscarriage and mountain crucing in the above crucing table, and therefore, the items related to miscarriage and mountain crucing in the above crucing table are not considered as a post-refluing disability, and therefore, it is difficult to believe that the above part of the appraisal rate cannot be said to be a result of the above crucing labor ability because it merely caused the above cruging or mountain cruing cruging without any disability, and therefore, it is difficult to say the above part of the appraisal rate.

Rather, the record reveals that the above plaintiff was a miscarriage of a fetus due to the accident in this case and received a scambling surgery in the process. Since the plaintiff complained of the scambling symptoms at the time of the physical examination of the first instance, the result of the physical examination of the first instance court recognized the scambling disorder caused by the unscambling, and that this constitutes 15% labor ability of 15% in Mabrod's table as it falls under Section II (B) (B) (L)-A (Sclod's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad'. However

Therefore, the court below's decision that recognized the fact of the death of a fetus in the womb who cannot be deemed as a prone disorder and the fact of the procedure for the alteration of the womb as a prone disorder without any ground, and recognized the rate of loss of labor ability in the case where there is a prone disorder of the Mabrid's miscarriage and assistance in child delivery due to miscarriage and assistance in child delivery, thereby recognizing the rate of loss of labor ability in the case where there is a prone disorder of the Mabrid's miscarriage and assistance in child delivery, the court below did not properly examine the remaining after the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the prone disability and the rate of loss of labor ability, or did not recognize facts without any evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the issue to point this out is with merit.

Therefore, among the part against the defendant as to lost income of the court below, the part ordering payment exceeding KRW 87,486,370, which is the scope of the defendant's objection, and its delay damages cannot be maintained, and this part of the case is reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)