[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the victim of a traffic accident suffered a disability in the form of a violation of the rule of experience, etc., by selecting the result of physical appraisal commission with different opinions as to whether the victim of a traffic accident suffered a disability and the fact inquiry result, which acknowledged the disability in the latter

1. As to the loss rate of labor ability

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff suffered injury, such as mination of the upper right one2 weeks of the accident in this case, mination of the peltom executives, the right peltom executives, etc., and thereafter, caused injury to the plaintiff at the Seosan Central Hospital, Seosan Central Hospital, which used metal tools, and thereafter took advantage of the fixed peltom peltom peltom pel to the right peltom peltom pelto, and rejected the judgment below on the ground that the result of the first instance court's physical examination, which expressed different opinions, was commissioned to the right peltom peltom pelto, among the result of the fact inquiry, and the result of the fact inquiry, which adopted 9% of the results of the fact inquiry as of October 1, 2008, and 9% of the permanent disability on the right peltom peltom peltom peltom peltom pelto.

However, it is difficult to accept the above recognition and judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

If there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same matter, it is legitimate unless it violates the rules of experience and logic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da44674, Apr. 10, 1992; 97Da36507, Dec. 12, 197).

However, according to the records, the examination of Kim Jong-chul at the time of commissioning the physical examination of the head of the medical hospital affiliated to the medical college of the Ginam University, although the examination of the body was conducted by means of radiation examination, physical examination of the head of the medical hospital affiliated to the Ginam University, the upper right-side part of the plaintiff's upper right-side part is in a complete aggregate, and the upper right-side part is in a complete aggregate, and the treatment is completed if the metal scrap inserted at the time of the operation is removed, and the treatment is not completed, and there is no specific foreseeable post-treatment after the completion of treatment, the treatment is recognized. In addition, in the procedure of commissioning the physical examination of the head of the medical hospital affiliated to the Ginam University of the Jinamnam University, the new examination of the appraiser's physical examination of the plaintiff by means of radiation examination, physical examination and measurement of the scope of movement, etc., and then the right-side part is complete, and there is no difference within 2mm after expressing the opinion of the change in length or modification.

Therefore, since the results of physical examination and fact-finding conducted with respect to the head of the hospital annexed to the Gynam University, the credibility of the physical examination is considerably deteriorated. Thus, the court below should have confirmed the present status of the plaintiff accurately and compared the results of the fact-finding conducted with other evidences and closely with the results of the fact-finding conducted with respect to the head of the hospital annexed to the Chungcheongnamnam University, which is the result of the fact-finding conducted with respect to the above physical examination and the results of fact-finding conducted without taking all such measures, and recognized the plaintiff as being disabled by taking the above physical examination results and the fact-finding conducted without taking all necessary measures. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of experience and logic, which affected the conclusion

On the other hand, the court below acknowledged that there was a permanent disability of 7% on the left side of the plaintiff, while the court below acknowledged that there was a permanent disability of 50% on the part of the plaintiff, since the evidence preparation and fact-finding do not violate the rules of experience or logic, the evidence preparation and fact-finding do not violate the rules of experience or logic. Thus, the ground of appeal on a different premise is without merit.

2. As to the limitation of liability

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's assertion that the responsibility on the side of the vehicle should be limited because the plaintiff was negligent in crossinging the road without carefully examining the movement of the vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue, in light of all the circumstances such as the background of the accident at issue, the place and time of the accident at issue, the degree of damage to the plaintiff, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the accident at issue was caused by the driver's negligence because the accident at issue was caused by the shock of the pedestrian who caused the above pedestrian at the crosswalk due to neglecting the duty of front guard, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was negligent in the accident at the time of the accident at issue. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed (the part of the judgment below against the defendant cannot be maintained as it is, and it is therefore reversed). This part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)