[손해배상(자)][미간행]
[1] The scope of compensation for damage and the criteria for determination in a case where the ex post facto legacy of the victim due to a traffic accident conflicts between the accident and the victim's spacifies
[2] The case holding that the court's rejection of the request for physical reexamination is not illegal in a case where the result of physical reexamination is submitted and there is no change in circumstances that do not go against the logical and empirical rules
[1] Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu112 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 785), Supreme Court Decision 91Da31517 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 1702), Supreme Court Decision 91Da39320 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong192, 1965)
Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Lee-il, Attorneys Han-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Samsung Fire Maritime Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Hong Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na6615 Decided November 17, 2006
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
As a result of the appraiser's appraisal of the rate of medical physical disability, which is a supplementary material to determine the rate of loss of labor ability, requires special knowledge and experience in finding facts, the judge uses only the knowledge and experience of the person with special knowledge and experience. If the victim's post-treatment caused by a traffic accident concurrently appeared due to the accident and the victim's king, it is reasonable in terms of the fair burden of damages to have the victim bear the corresponding amount of compensation according to the degree that the accident contributed to the occurrence of the result. In determining the degree of contribution, the court shall make a reasonable determination by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the cause and degree of the king, correlation with the king, the correlation with the king, the victim's age and occupation, and the health condition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da39320, May 22, 1992). In addition, if the result of the examination of evidence completed does not violate the rule of experience or logic, it is not necessary for the party to request the physical examination even if there is no new evidence.
Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, in this case, Plaintiff 1 was diagnosed by lurging that Plaintiff 1 suffered from emotional distress, that is, a disease in the progress, after the accident, and was diagnosed by lurging, it was not found that: (a) recognized that the physical examination of lurgal disease was caused by 80% by taking into account the characteristics of lurgal disease; and (b) determined Plaintiff 1’s degree of contribution to lurgal disease as 80% by considering the characteristics of lurgal disease; and (c) determined Plaintiff 1’s disability as lurgy disability for 5 years; and (d) there was no data on the grounds that it would violate the rules of experience or logic; (b) without accepting the request for physical reexamination of the plaintiffs; and (c) without examining the past history of Plaintiff 1’s physical reexamination, it is acceptable that the court below calculated the amount of damages according to the result of the above physical reexamination; and (d) there is no illegality, such as violation of rules of evidence or logical reasoning.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)