[손해배상(자)][공1994.9.15.(976),2301]
The method of calculating the rate of loss rate of subsequent labor ability where a worker has lost a part of his/her labor ability;
In order to calculate the rate of loss of labor ability in the situation where a part of the ability to work was lost due to the chilling of the left-hand side and the chilling disability, it is necessary to consider the degree of loss of labor ability due to the king disability such as reducing the degree of loss of labor ability due to the chilling disability.
Civil Act Article 763 (Article 393)
[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-
Plaintiff
Attorney Seo-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na35185 delivered on February 23, 1994
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court.
The remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. As to the ground of appeal
A. The court below, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged that the plaintiff suffered from the instability of the left side and the aftermathal disorder of the light, which caused the plaintiff to lose 37% of his ability to work after the period of hospitalization, i.e., the defendant's assertion (2) that "the plaintiff suffered from the physical disability of the spathy spathn which caused the plaintiff's ability to work due to the spathy, and the rate of loss of his ability to work is 29% to 36%, since the above rate of loss of ability to work should be deducted from the above rate of loss of ability to work should be 37%, since the above rate of loss of ability to work should be deducted from the above rate of loss of ability to work due to the above spathy and the impairment of the height of the plaintiff's ability to work, but the degree of loss of the plaintiff's ability to work is recognized as having been caused by the accident in this case without relation to the loss of ability to work due to the above s.
B. However, even according to the court below's approval, the plaintiff is likely to be deemed to have again lost the ability to work due to the accident in this case in the condition that part of the ability to work was already lost. Thus, in order to calculate only the loss rate of the ability to work due to the accident in this case, the plaintiff was aware of the current loss rate of the ability to work due to the accident in this case. Here, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of the lost ability to work due to the accident in this case. (See Supreme Court Decision 8Da33473 delivered on December 26, 1990.) The court below found that the plaintiff lost 37% of the ability to work due to the accident in this case (i.e., the occurrence of the subsequent disability caused by the accident in this case and the degree of loss of the ability to work due to the accident in this case.) on the ground that the plaintiff did not have contributed to the loss rate of ability to work due to the accident in this case.
2. The defendant filed an appeal against the costs of treatment and consolation money in the future against the defendant among the part of the judgment below against the defendant, but there is no indication of the grounds in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief, and this part of the appeal is not acceptable
3. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)