(b) Negligence offsetting the amount of medical care compensation under the Labor Standards Act;

B. As to the medical care compensation as stipulated in Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act, the employer is obligated to pay the full amount in the absence of special circumstances, and the worker cannot be exempted from the payment of an amount equivalent to the above ratio on the ground that he was negligent. Therefore, it shall not be deducted from the compensation

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed above are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the plaintiff filed an appeal against the defendant as to KRW 76,69,852, which is the difference between the original claim amount and the corrected amount, even though 83,918,016 won was accepted in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the above quoted amount was corrected as KRW 85,718,016 among the above claimed amount, the plaintiff filed an appeal against KRW 76,669,852, which is the difference between the original claim amount and the quoted amount before correction. It is obvious that the above claim amount was reduced as KRW 157,102,041 in accordance with an application for change of the claim purport as of November 26, 1984, which was stated at the seventh date of pleading in the court of first instance. Thus, where part of the claim was reduced in the appellate court, the reduced portion goes beyond litigation and is excluded from the subject of adjudication of the appellate court. Thus, the court below's decision is justified in the misapprehension of the purport of the appeal as to the plaintiff's appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2, 3, and 4

The purport of the proviso of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is as follows: (a) a person who operates a motor vehicle on his/her own behalf, notwithstanding the fault of the passenger, unless it is proved that there is an intentional act on the part of the passenger, shall be liable for damages in cases where the passenger is killed or injured due to the operation of the motor vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 68Da2071, Jun. 10, 1969; Supreme Court Decision 69Da1606, Jan. 27, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 78Da193, Dec. 26, 1978). However, according to the records, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence by misapprehending the legal principles as to comparative negligence and by misapprehending the legal principles as to comparative negligence on the part of the non-party (a person who was in charge of management with the equipment of the defendant company) who is not a fixed driver at the construction site of this case.

3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6

The judgment of the court below acknowledged that the average remaining life of the plaintiff was 38.99 years at the time of the plaintiff's accident and that one adult female's family is required during the life period. However, compared with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and there is no ground for misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

4. As to ground of appeal No. 7

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that all the plaintiff's property damage caused by the accident of this case caused by the accident of this case was 96,170,206, and determined 76,936,164 won of the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant in consideration of the plaintiff's negligence in the accident of this case, and deducted 10,046,678 won of the amount of damages paid by the defendant from the defendant's medical expenses of this case from the above amount of damages.

However, according to the records, since medical expenses paid by the defendant were purchased as industrial accident compensation insurance by the defendant, the above insurance company was considered to have paid for the plaintiff for the defendant (see, e.g., Chapter 567,571 of the record). If the above medical care compensation refers to medical care compensation under Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act, barring special circumstances, the defendant who is the employer is liable to pay the full amount and cannot be exempted from the payment at a reasonable rate due to the plaintiff's negligence. Thus, it cannot be deducted from the amount of compensation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu351, Oct. 13, 1981; 82Meu1702, Apr. 12, 1983). If the above medical expenses paid by the defendant was determined as industrial accident compensation insurance, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the definition of medical care under Article 78 of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the justice of the Labor Standards Act.

5. As to ground of appeal No. 8

According to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, in a case where a judgment ordering the performance of a monetary obligation is rendered, if it is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation, the provisions of Article 3 (1) of the said Act shall not apply to a reasonable extent (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu875, 876, 877, Feb. 14, 1984). In light of the records, the measures that the defendant did not apply Article 3 (1) of the said Act by deeming that a dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation is reasonable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 3 of the said Act.

6. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, which dismissed the claim for payment of 10,046,678 won and damages for delay thereof, shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff are without merit, and the costs of appeal regarding the dismissal of the appeal shall be assessed against the losing party by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)