Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined that, due to the instant accident, Plaintiff 1’s remaining disability in the part of the right pipe section (180∑ 180·45∑ 45∑), the complete steel of the right satisfaction section, the joint steel of the right satisfaction section, the joint steel of the complete steel and reflection of the outer part, the right-to-hand transition and the shortening of the light frame (4.5cm and the degree of 5cm each), are inappropriate by applying the above evaluation rate of 1% for the total disability to the above part of the above 5th disability to the extent that the above evaluation rate of the above 19% of the work experience of the general rural community, 7% of the work experience of the general rural community, 19% of the work experience ratio, 29% of the total work experience of the above part, 3% of the work experience ratio of the above 5th disability to the extent that the above evaluation rate of the disability in the above 5th disability is unreasonable, and 19% of the above part of the work experience of the general rural community, 19% of the work experience.

However, the labor ability loss rate is related to telegraphic function, and there is a composite disability on one side of the body, and the rate of labor ability loss cannot be more severe than the rate of labor ability loss in the case where the part is cut off and the part is lost (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da3428 delivered on July 11, 1995). On other premise, the court below recognized that the rate of labor ability loss on the part on the right side of the right side is limited to the rate of labor ability loss due to the act of cutting off the upper part below the upper part of the right side, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the evaluation of labor ability, and there is a ground to point this out.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

In light of the records, the plaintiff 1 cannot find out any trace of claiming the compensation for lost income on the ground of the harm caused by the harm not left-hand side, brain-dead ground, spath, spath, spawn, spawn, spawn, spawn, memory spawn, and the loss of skin as discussed until the closing of argument in the court below. In addition, it is acceptable that the court below set the rate of negligence on the part of the plaintiff as stated in the decision by the evidences of time, and there is no error of law in failing to conduct a deliberation as discussed, or in violation of the rules of evidence

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Plaintiff 1's passive damages shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The remaining appeals by Plaintiff 1 and appeals by Plaintiffs 2 and 3 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the dismissed party shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)