[1] The probative value of the results of the physical examination and whether the facts are legitimate in recognition of the facts according to any one of the several appraisal results which conflict with the same facts

[2] The criteria for determining the duration of a testamentary gift after an injury

[3] The measures taken by the court in the case where the physical appraisal of the same symptoms overlaps

[4] The method of calculating medical expenses for the injury suffered by a tort

[5] Whether the determination of the amount of consolation money for mental suffering suffered by a tort constitutes discretionary matters under the authority of the fact-finding court (affirmative)

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 393, 763 of the Civil Act / [5] Articles 393, 751, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu14076 Decided June 27, 1989 (Gong1989, 150) Supreme Court Decision 91Da4674 Decided April 10, 1992 (Gong1992, 1543) 201Da2777 Decided June 28, 200 (Gong2002Ha, 1797) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da2539 Decided September 27, 1994 (Gong194, 2817, 289) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da28410 Decided October 12, 195 (Supreme Court Decision 207Da8497, Jun. 27, 2004)

Counterclaim Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yang Dong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2001Na10921 delivered on January 17, 2003

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the counterclaim.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The appraiser's appraisal result with respect to physical appraisal is only one of the methods of evidence, and the judge can determine the rate of loss of labor ability different from the specific appraisal result by free evaluation of all evidence in the case in question. If the court employs one of them when there are several different appraisal results with respect to the same fact, it is legitimate unless it violates the rules of experience or logic (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Da14076, Jun. 27, 1989; 2001Da27777, Jun. 28, 2002; 2001Da277777, Jun. 28, 2002). It is determined by the rules of experience in consideration of the specific contents of legacy, the age of the victim, the nature of occupation and work experience, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da2539, Sep. 27, 199; 200Da1674, Oct. 16, 195).

Examining the above legal principles and evidence in light of the records, the court below is just to recognize the period of the latter disability, the rate of the loss of labor ability and the rate of the loss of labor ability in most cases, but it is common to recognize the period of the loss of labor ability in most cases. However, the court below accepted part of the results of each physical appraisal and fact-finding with different opinions as to the period of the loss of labor ability, and judged the rate of the loss of labor ability, and only the structural disability of rehabilitation and the rehabilitation department among the similar symptoms of the same part, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Medical expenses can be claimed only within the scope of proximate causal relation with tort. Thus, in determining the reasonableness of medical expenses, the reasonableness of the amount of remuneration for the medical treatment act should be reviewed along with the necessity and period of the relevant medical act. To that end, the scope should be reasonably determined by reasonably excluding the possibility of an extraordinary high-amount medical expenses or low-amount medical expenses by taking into account various circumstances, such as the degree of injury, content of treatment, recovery, and universal level of medical expenses in the society (in particular, medical insurance fees) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da240, Apr. 25, 1967; 87Da74, Apr. 27, 198; 87Da1518, May 24, 198).

Examining the above legal principles and related evidence in light of the records, we affirm that the court below's rejection of the above legal principles by comprehensively taking into account the evidence admitted in its judgment, on the ground that the treatment costs for the king, or the treatment costs for the excessive treatment, and physical appraisal costs, etc. are not within the scope of proximate causal relation with the accident of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to treatment costs in proximate causal relation with the tort, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The amount of consolation money for mental suffering caused by tort can be determined at the discretion of the fact-finding court in consideration of various circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377 delivered on April 23, 199, etc.).

In light of the records, the judgment below's determination of the amount of consolation money against the counterclaim is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of consolation money.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the final appeal is dismissed (the legitimacy of the application of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings as to Delay Damages is ex officio determination matters, and the final appeal is determined only within the scope of a party’s appeal. Thus, insofar as a counterclaim Defendant did not appeal, the above part on the merits is not determined, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)