According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff, at the time of his military service on November 1, 1976, was unable to be engaged in driving as an automobile driver of the 11st century, due to traffic accident and was removed from the Gun, and was receiving a fixed amount of wages. However, due to the accident on February 20, 1981, the plaintiff again suffered pressure from the 12 plehal constru and the 1st century and the 1st century's upper part of the foundation, and caused the aggravation of the symptoms, which led to the aggravation of the 12nd century's upper part of the foundational movement, so it was no longer possible to be engaged in driving as an automobile driver, and the 23 percent of the urban daily work ability was lost. The plaintiff recognized the total amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the loss and other accidents under the premise that he can only obtain an urban income from his daily work based on his reduced work ability.

However, in the event that the plaintiff had already been suffering from the 11st century and the injury caused by the accident was concurrent, and the plaintiff lost part of the ability as driving water and the ability to work for urban day, the plaintiff's king was aggravated due to the injury caused by the accident. As such, the plaintiff's king was an indirect factor in the accident. Thus, if the plaintiff lost his ability to work due to the difference between the plaintiff's king and the injury caused by the accident and the injury caused by the accident, it is unfair from the principle of fair burden of damages to the extent that it is recognized that the injury caused by the accident contributed to the loss of the plaintiff's ability to work. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to sharing damages caused by the competition between the plaintiff's loss and the damages caused by the accident and the accident, and it is therefore unfair from the perspective of fair burden of damages. In any case, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the damages caused by the loss of the plaintiff's ability to work. The ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the lower court, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)