B. Whether measures that recognize probative value as a result of the physical reexamination entrustment conducted in consideration of the contents of the medical record in paragraph (a) above are appropriate (affirmative)

(c) Method of determining the loss rate of labor capacity in calculating the lost profit.

(d) Where the aftermath of the victim of a traffic accident conflicts with the spathy of the victim for the occurrence of the accident, the scope of compensation for damage;

B. In light of the contents of the medical record under Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act, it cannot be said that the court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of good faith, etc. under Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act in regard to the measure of recognizing its probative value based on the result of

C. When calculating the lost profit by applying the rate of loss of labor ability, the rate of loss of labor ability is not merely a simple rate of physical disability but a victim’s age, degree of education, nature and career of previous occupations, degree of occupational experience, degree of skill skill, possibility of occupational expertise in physical and similar occupations or other occupations, and their probability and probability, and other social and economic conditions. The result of appraisal by an appraiser of the rate of loss of medical physical disability, which is one of assistive materials to determine the rate of loss of labor ability, is nothing more than a judge’s use of special knowledge and experience in finding facts, and ultimately, it cannot be determined in light of the aforementioned victim’s overall conditions and experience.

D. If the victim’s post-exploitation caused by a traffic accident conflicts between the accident and the victim’s ex post facto gift, it is reasonable to have the victim bear the corresponding amount of compensation according to the degree recognized to have contributed to the occurrence of the result of the after-exploitation from the perspective of fair sharing of damages. The court shall reasonably determine the degree of contribution by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the cause and degree of the king, the correlation between the king and the post-exploitation, the victim’s age, occupation, and health condition.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The plaintiffs' physical reexamination at the court below was conducted based on Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 to 3 (radiation and report at the Youngdong Hospital located in the Dongdong Hospital located in the Dongdong Hospital where the plaintiff was first treated), and since the above written examination was part of the medical records lost during the custody at the Youngdong Hospital, it constitutes not only Article 317 (1) of the Criminal Act, but also Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act should not be submitted as evidence, and even if submitted, it should not be recognized as probative value or adopted as basic materials of the lawsuit, the court below asserted that there was an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as the principle of good faith, etc.

However, there is no evidence that the evidence No. 5-1 to No. 3 of the evidence No. 5 is part of the medical record lost at a hospital as alleged, and even if it is part of the medical record lost for domestic affairs, submission of the above document alone cannot be deemed as a crime of divulgence of occupational secrets under Article 317(1) of the Criminal Act. Moreover, it cannot be said that there was an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the principle of good faith under Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act with regard to the measures to recognize its probative value by taking into account the content as the basic material of a lawsuit.

2. When calculating the lost profit by applying the rate of loss of labor capacity, the rate of loss of labor capacity shall not be simple rate of physical disability but shall be determined based on the empirical rule, taking into account the victim’s age, degree of education, nature and career of the previous occupation, degree of occupational experience, degree of occupational ability, degree of bodily disability and occupation equivalent to or similar type of occupation, and the probability and probability of such occupational occupation, and other social and economic conditions. The appraiser’s appraisal of the rate of medical and physical disability (which is one of assistive materials for determining the rate of loss of labor capacity) is merely a judge’s use of special knowledge and experience in finding facts, and ultimately, it shall not be determined otherwise in light of the above-mentioned victim’s overall conditions and empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1613, Oct. 13, 1987; 86Meu2731, Mar. 14, 1989).

The court below also rejected the result of physical reexamination which adopted the physical reexamination commission that recognized the age-based contribution rate in calculating the ratio of the loss of labor ability by beerd method as one of the evidence to determine the ratio of the plaintiffs' loss of labor ability, and adopted the physical reexamination commission that recognized the ratio of the loss of labor ability high, and rejected the result of physical reexamination that recognized the ratio of the loss of labor ability low. In full view of the adopted evidence by the court below, the court below did not determine the ratio of the loss of labor ability in consideration of social and economic conditions as seen above, rather than determining the ratio of the loss of labor ability in consideration of the degree of the plaintiffs' loss of labor ability by taking into account the above physical reexamination entrustment result, rather than determining the ratio of the loss of labor ability in light of social and economic conditions as seen above, and the ratio of the loss of labor ability recognized by the court below is not in violation of the rules of experience and logical rules.

The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho