1. The judgment of the court below on the ratio of loss of operating capacity due to the Plaintiff’s instant accident. The court below found the following facts based on the macroscopic evidence.

(1) From around 1976 before the instant accident (the fourth year of a national school), the Plaintiff was in a state of Cheong-do disability due to chronic typhitis at the time of the draft physical examination on October 8, 1985, and was in a state of Cheong-do disability due to chronic typhitis. However, immediately after the instant accident, the chronic typhitis and its high tynasium was observed on the right right ear, but only Lee Jin-do was observed on the left side, and other specific typhical typhs were not observed.

(2) Meanwhile, after the accident in this case, the Plaintiff was in the state of chronic chronronism caused by chronic chronism, and the left side of the accident shows symptoms of chronic chronological kissis, and thus, they may suffer from chronic chronism, and irreculsis may suffer from chronic chronsis, and even after the completion of the previous chronic chronitis, her chronic chronsis may suffer from chronic chronsis, and even if her chronic chronsis is caused by external chronsis, her chronic chronsis may cause a chronic chronsissis caused by damage to necossis.

(3) In general, the range of blue distance in normal conditions is 20 feet, and even if the residual disability of the heart remains due to the sulphism of chronic chronitis, the range of blue distance is 10 feet, compared to the average value, and in the case of the plaintiff, the left left ear was more severe than the general average value due to chronic chrone, and was in a state of residual disability than the general average value due to chronic chrone.

(4) Before the instant accident, the Plaintiff had been working as a manufacturer of steel products, and the noise at the work site was relatively high enough to dialogue with the next person and work at a visible state to the extent that it does not cause any particular impediment to the work. However, after the instant accident, the Plaintiff was unable to work for the manufacture of steel products since the state of the king’s scopic situation has deteriorated to the extent that ordinary dialogue is impossible and a large amount of dialogue is not possible, making it impossible to do so.

B. Based on the above facts, the lower court determined as follows.

(1) The Plaintiff is confirmed to have aggravated the state of king’s chronic disorder on the left side due to chronic doubleitis again due to the shock caused by the instant accident.

(2) Therefore, in determining the rate of loss of operating capacity due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s degree of contribution to the said rate should be assessed to the extent that it is recognized that the symptoms caused by the instant accident contributed to the occurrence of the said loss of operating capacity. In the case of the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to determine the rate of loss of operating capacity by deducting the degree of contribution from the degree of contribution to the left king in the situation where the loss of operating capacity due to the instant accident had already been in the state of king caused by chronic heavy infection. In such a case, in determining the rate of loss of operating capacity due to the instant accident, it is reasonable to assess the rate of loss of operating capacity by deducting the degree of contribution to the left king in the situation where the Plaintiff was able to return home at the right her normal time.

(3) Generally, the walking distance of the normal state is 20 feet, while the degree of disability of the plaintiff's present left side is up to 1 feet, and the walking condition of the left side of the port is 98 pages (EARS) and 12% of the physical disability rate is 12% of the physical function rate, on the basis of the case of the circumstances of returning to the right side under the comprehensive assessment table of the Mabrid disability, on the basis of the case of the circumstances of returning to the right side on the surface of the Mabrid disability (one ear up to one ear and the other 20 feet up to 10 feet).

(4) Meanwhile, there is no way to compute the degree of the residual disability caused by chronic tyrosis of the Plaintiff’s left side from the present chronic tyrosis medically with the aggravation of the symptoms caused by the present accident. Therefore, the general average value of the residual disability caused by chronic tyrosis shall be calculated, and it shall be presumed to be sufficient to prove it to the degree of the Plaintiff’s left king proof. Accordingly, the physical function rate shall be 5% by applying the Malodrid column 6 third line (one 10 feet, another 20 feet) to the condition of the aftermath disability caused by the Plaintiff’s left tyrosis.

(5) Therefore, the degree of decline in the physical function disability ratio of the Plaintiff’s left side of the instant accident is calculated to 7% (12% - 5%). Taking into account the Plaintiff’s age, educational degree, the Plaintiff’s nature, career, possibility and probability of occupational change, the Plaintiff’s social and economic condition, and all other circumstances shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to assess the working ability of the Plaintiff to lose its left side due to the instant accident to 7%.

2. Judgment of party members

A. On the first ground for appeal

(1) According to the witness testimony of the court below, even if a chronic dysty has been completely cured after suffering from chronic dysysty, but its probability is low. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that king suffered from chronic dystye due to chronic dystye before the accident of this case, on the sole basis of the fact that the plaintiff suffered from chronic dystye before the accident of this case and completely cured the treatment, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that there was a chronic dystye from chronic dystye due to chronic dystye which was completely cured at the time of the accident of this case. Thus, it cannot be presumed that there was a state of chronic dystye disorder due to chronic dystye on the left side of the plaintiff at the time of the accident of this case. Ultimately, it is reasonable to presume that the plaintiff's occupational dystye situation caused by the accident of this case only by the accident of this case.

(2) However, according to the records of this case, there is no specific evidence that there was a king due to chronic dynasty on the left side of the plaintiff at the time of the accident of this case, but the court below presumed that the plaintiff suffered chronic dynasty from chronic dynasty before the accident of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and pointing this out has merit.

B. On the second ground for appeal

(1) The plaintiff, who suffered from a chronic hystrophal disorder caused by chronic hystrophism, suffered from a chronic hystrophy disorder caused by the accident of this case. Thus, in such a case, the plaintiff's operational ability to lose due to the accident of this case should be determined by the method of reducing the degree of the loss of labor ability due to hystrophism (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3473, Dec. 26, 1990).

(2) In consideration of the Plaintiff’s chronic typhism, the lower court: (a) it is reasonable to calculate the loss rate of operating capacity of only the left one while excluding the king of the right one by assuming the case of the right one in the case of the circumstances where the Plaintiff’s chronic typhism due to the chronic typhism; and (b) it cannot be deemed that the degree of the victim’s operational ability is the same as the case where a person who has already suffered a disability of another typhe due to the trouble of the other typhe and the normal person suffered a disability of the same degree as ear; and (c) therefore, even if there was a disability to the right one, it cannot be said that the loss rate of operating capacity due to the accident of this case cannot be calculated on the normal basis despite the fact that there is an obstacle to the right one, such as the lower court.

(3) Therefore, the court below, which calculated the rate of loss of operation ability due to the plaintiff's accident in this case, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the method of calculating the loss of operation ability when there is a king certificate, and the argument pointing this out also has merit.

(4) However, if the state of difficulty due to chronic dynasty infections of the Plaintiff’s right ear, the rate of loss of operational capacity due to the Plaintiff’s instant accident may vary. Thus, this issue shall also be examined.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part against the plaintiff as to passive damages of the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff as to 50,632,137 won and its delay damages and the part against the plaintiff as to consolation money shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)