2. Green investment company;

3. The National Federation of Bus Transport Business Associations;

1. The lower court acknowledged the fact that, following the inspection report of the first diagnosis report of a member of the G G Ge-type division and the members of the Ge-type division, immediately after the occurrence of the accident in this case, the injury of the e-mail in the outer half of the e-slive half of the outer half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the e-slive half of the accident in this case was found.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the records as cited by the court below, the medical records of the court of first instance as well as the reasons for the judgment of the court below are as follows. ① The reading opinion of the court of first instance on April 1, 2009, attached to the medical records of the G regular general surgery, stating the following purport: ② the reading opinion of the G regular medical examination of the MRI on April 1, 2009, stating that the G regular medical examination of the MRI is a part of the G regular medical examination of the G regular medical department, ② the inspection opinion of the GRI hospital of the GRI on September 8, 209, that the MRI's continuity and signal strength are maintained; ③ the medical records of the submitted video and medical records are maintained in the shape of the former regular medical examination; ② there is no objective opinion of the Mascop in the upper, but there is no possibility of the Mascopic from the operation before the operation, ④ there is no possibility to know the results of the MR operation before the operation.

In the meantime, when applying for the fact-finding on the members of G Jong-type medical department, the part of MI as the fact-finding fact-finding on April 1, 2009, and the symptoms or opinions at the time of the examination on the face of the official holiday on April 7, 2009 were stated, and the first instance court did not adopt it.

(2) In full view of the foregoing facts, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was a causal link between the instant accident and the instant accident and the instant accident, and the external and external side of the slives of the slives of the slives of the slives of the slives, to the extent that the slives of the slives were recognized.

Therefore, the lower court should have appropriately exercised the right of explanation, and have deliberated in detail on the following methods: (a) whether there was a slifficule siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic siffic sifficsiffic sifficsiffic sifficsiffic siffic siffics

(3) In addition, according to the result of the appraisal of the medical record by the appraiser at the first instance trial on September 8, 2009, the appraiser expressed his opinion that "the shape of the former team is maintained," and that "the image and medical record submitted is without any objective opinion of the former team leader," while referring to "29% (14.5%) if the labor disability rate is damaged to the latter, 50% if it is recognized to be 50%)," and "the market within the second year from the date of the preparation of the appraisal report."

It is reasonable to deem that the same appraiser constitutes a case where the same appraiser has inconsistent or obscure opinion on the same appraisal matter. Thus, the court below should take active measures, such as ordering the appraiser to supplement the appraisal document or disclosing accurate opinion through the examination method of the appraisal witness, unless otherwise specifically supported by other evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da10955, Jun. 10, 1994).

Furthermore, considering the fact that the disability diagnosis report prepared on October 12, 2009 by the National University Hospital on September 8, 2009 was made after the MRI inspection of the National University Hospital, the lower court needs to further examine the specific grounds for the diagnosis of the slife in slife of the slife with the slife’s disease from the slife of the slife to the slife’s disease.

(4) Nevertheless, the court below held that there was a proximate causal link between the accident in this case and the injury of the victim, which was caused by the accident in this case and the external half of the injury of the victim, the external half of the slives of the slives, the external half of the slives of the slives, and the slives of the slives of the slives of the anti

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-tae

Justices Cho Jong-hee, Justice Cho Jae-hee

Justices Park Sang-ok