[2] The method of determining the number of family members required due to the aftermath of a personal accident

[2] The recognition of the number of family members required due to the aftermath of a personal accident shall be in accordance with the rule of experience and logic to determine the number of family members living together by examining the total number of hours to be worked for the opening of the opening of the opening of the day and calculating the number of family members who need to be worked for the opening of the opening of the opening of a day based on eight hours a day, unless there is any special reason to employ the opening of the opening of a person.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal

A. On the first ground for appeal

In a case where the victim had been working at the workplace at the time of the accident, if objective data exists to determine the actual income at the time of the accident to the victim, and if it is possible to calculate the expected income that can be reasonably and objectively based on such objective data, the actual income shall be calculated based on the actual income at the time of the accident, and even if the statistical income, such as the basic statistical survey report on the wage structure or the monthly market price, is higher than the actual income, the actual income may be calculated based on such statistical income, only in a case where a special circumstance exists that makes it possible to obtain the stolen income as much as the actual statistical income that was actually earned at the time of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da26134, Sept. 27, 1994; 97Da5367, Apr. 25, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was able to obtain income from the above average monthly income of 2,357,500 won since the plaintiff was 205,00 won per day under the statistics agreement and wage agreement between the above trade union and the electrical construction business operator, and that the plaintiff was 2,665,000 won per day before the accident of this case, and that the plaintiff was able to obtain income from the above average monthly income of 2,357,500 won per day before the accident of this case. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's allegation that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above 1-day income from the above 2-day income from the above 4,510 won per month since the major was 22-day per month, and that there was no evidence that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the 2-day income from the accident of this case as the above 2-day income from the above 2-day average income from the above facts.

In addition, the Supreme Court decisions alleged in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate since they differ from the case of this case and thus are inappropriate to be invoked. Therefore, there is no violation of the Supreme Court precedents in the judgment below. The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

B. On the second ground for appeal

The recognition of the number of persons required for the care due to the aftermath of personal injury shall be determined by the method of calculating the number of persons in need of the care per day based on eight hours per day by examining the total number of hours of the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together with the family living together

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the evidence adopted in its judgment, the plaintiff needs to open one adult male male who works for urban daily work until December 9, 200 because it is impossible to take part in the 11,12 chest or less caused by the accident of this case and move them to December 9, 200 after the accident of this case. However, the court below's decision that the plaintiff can take part in the 11,12 chest or less caused by the accident of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles and the records as to the admission of food from the time of violation of the rules of evidence, since it is possible for the plaintiff to take part in the daily life after the physical examination of the first instance court and adapt it to his daily life, and there is no other error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the admission of 1, 200-day, 20-day and 30-day, and there is no other reason for appeal that the plaintiff violated the rules of evidence.

2. As to the defendant's incidental appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party, on May 29, 1998, driven a cargo vehicle insured by the defendant around 22:00 and proceeded at a speed of about 92 km per hour at the speed of about 70 km at the speed of the speed of 70 km, and neglected to do so, thereby causing injury to the plaintiff by taking advantage of the plaintiff's driver's horse driving machine driving in the same direction as the second line of the above road. The plaintiff, as the plaintiff, shall install and operate a device distinguishing the light flag at night, and shall attach and operate it even at night, and even if it should be operated even even even even with the road's length, the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the occurrence of damage caused by the accident in this case. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence as pointed out in the ground of incidental appeal, and it cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal and supplementary appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)