[손해배상][공1978.10.1.(593),10997]
Other appraisal results and rule of experience for the period of time required by a person with the beginning;
The result of the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial to the effect that, in the event that a person is required to use his/her clothes and wheelchairs for the life of the victim, the result of the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial to the effect that, even though it is not shown that the result of the appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial necessary to open until his/her life until his/her life reaches the age of 10 is not shown to be in accordance with the rule of experience.
Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act
(1) Plaintiff 1 (2) Plaintiff 2 (3) is a minor, and thus, Plaintiff 3 Plaintiff 1 is the legal representative of parental authority, Plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 2, Dong Hong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Suwon Transportation Corporation
Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2649 delivered on March 23, 1978
(1) The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff 1 regarding the opening costs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
(2) All remaining appeals by Plaintiffs 1 and appeals by Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are dismissed.
(3) The costs of appeal against Plaintiff 1 are assessed against the same Plaintiff, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3 respectively.
(1) We examine the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, while recognizing the fact that Plaintiff 1 was a male baby of June 13, 1973 and left 3 years old and 10 months old at the time of the accident of this case, he was cut off the upper part of each bridge due to an automobile accident at the time of the accident of this case, and he was required to use artificial legs and wheelchairss in the future, the court below determined to the effect that it is necessary to reach 10 years of age in determining the necessity of the nursing.
However, according to the appraisal result of the appraiser in the first instance trial rejected by the court below, it is necessary until the plaintiff uses wheel chairss, and if the above plaintiff's physical condition was determined by the court below, unless there are special circumstances, it is hard to view that the opening of gates is only necessary in our experience, such as the appraisal result of the above appraiser's appraisal, unless there is a special reason, even if we consider that the opening of gates is necessary until her life is fully observed. However, the court below's decision to the purport that the opening of gates is necessary only for the same plaintiff to reach 10 years of age on the ground of only the appraisal result as stated in the judgment of the court below, without any reasonable reason, in determining the necessity of opening gates against the above plaintiff. However, the court below's decision to the purport that the opening of gates is not fully examined or it is contrary to the rule of experience and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it is difficult to criticize the plaintiff that there is any water that has been a ground for the judgment.
There is reason to point out these points.
(2) Although Plaintiff 2 and Plaintiff 3 submitted a written appeal, they did not state the grounds for appeal in the written appeal submitted, and it is apparent in the record that they did not submit a written appeal within a legitimate period.
(3) Accordingly, the part of the plaintiffs' appeal concerning the plaintiffs 1 among the plaintiffs' appeal of this case is with merit, and the judgment of the court below as to that part is reversed. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 as well as the appeals by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are all dismissed as they are without merit. The part of the costs of the appeal against the plaintiff 1 as to the same plaintiff, 2 and 3 are with the same expenses. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)