손해배상(자)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
[Claim]
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the new argument made by the defendant in this court as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to calculate the Plaintiff’s labor disability loss rate according to the Mablod’s evaluation table where the development of the Mablod’s labor disability is not considered in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff is able to walk in the same condition as the normal person when she wears a high-priced bid recognized as an auxiliary device in this case; and (b) even putting the stairs out of the stairs is possible without the help of other persons or tools.
In order to calculate the lost income due to illegal acts, the determination of the loss rate of work ability shall be based on the detailed degree of after-the-job legacy of the victim, the impact of the loss rate on the victim's mental and physical activities, the victim's age, degree of education, occupation, career and skills, the degree of occupational experience and skills, the possibility of occupational change to similar occupation or other occupation, and other reasonable and objective conditions in light of social and economic conditions. In cases where there is a difference between the victim's loss rate of work ability according to the provision of medical aids, the assessment of the loss rate of work ability should be based on the condition where the victim
(Supreme Court Decision 96Da24712 delivered on April 28, 1998). However, even if the Plaintiff wears the intention recognized as an auxiliary tool in this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the condition of disability is improved to the extent that it can perform labor required in various occupations beyond the daily life, such as breaking walking or stairs, even if the Plaintiff wears the intention recognized as an auxiliary tool, and otherwise.