(a) The probative value of the result of appraisal of life by commission of physical appraisal in recognizing how much life has been reduced due to the aftermath of injury;

B. Whether even if the damages incurred on a regular basis in the future are claimed in a lump sum (affirmative)

(a) What kind of harm may be reduced from the average life expectancy shall be determined individually from the medical point of view, depending on the specific contents of the legacy, and the result of the evaluation of life expectancy by entrustment of physical examination is belonging to the medical judgment, and unless there are special circumstances, the determination of the appraiser with respect thereto shall be respected.

B. Even if the compensation for damages incurred during a certain period in the future was claimed in a lump sum for a certain period of time, the court may order the payment of the compensation as a lump sum, and whether to order the payment as a lump sum is within the discretion of the court.

A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 393)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 90Meu27587 Decided January 25, 1991 (Gong1991,851). Supreme Court Decision 90Meu23325 Decided October 30, 1990 (Gong1990,2415) (Gong1991,446) Decided December 7, 1990 (Gong1991,446). (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da36628 Decided January 21, 1992 (Gong192,897) 91Da39368 Decided October 27, 1992 (Gong192,3246)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na44331 delivered on May 7, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

Whether the remaining life of the person who suffered injury can be reduced because of the influence of the average life expectancy is individually determined from the medical point of view according to the specific contents of the legacy. The result of the physical examination by commission of physical examination belongs to the medical judgment, and barring any special circumstance, the judgment of the appraiser as to the result should be respected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu28269, Dec. 7, 1990; 90Meu27587, Jan. 25, 1991).

Examining the written appraisal by commission of physical examination of the director of the first instance court's subsidiary hospital of the Yangyang University, which the court below adopted by the records, the appraiser evaluated the life expectancy for the next 35 years based on the literature of the case on the basis of the plaintiff's age and the overall condition of the plaintiff's age on the basis of the documents of the records of the accident of this case and the status of the subsequent disability. The results of such appraisal should be recognized unless there is any particular material in response thereto.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, while adopting the above appraisal results as evidence, the court below recognized the plaintiff's life expectancy as 25 years from the date of the physical appraisal different from the above appraisal statement without any specific circumstance, which committed an error of mistake due to the violation of the rules of evidence.

However, the court below, however, ordered the compensation for the damages for the actual profit prior to the above recognition's life period and the damages for the living expenses from the actual profit from the above life period to the plaintiff's operation period after the above life period after deducting the interim interest, and the damages for the living expenses from the actual profit from the above life period to the operation period during the living expenses from the operation period after the above life period shall be ordered each month to compensate for the plaintiff's survival, and the damages for the future medical expenses and the nursing expenses before the above life period shall be ordered as a lump sum, and the damages for the subsequent life shall be compensated for the money as a condition of survival. Since the above operation period is based on the plaintiff's survival, even if the court below erred otherwise in the above appraisal period, the court below ordered the compensation for the damages after the life period of the court below's approval. This error does not affect the conclusion.

This is because even if the court claimed the compensation for damages incurred each time in the future in a lump sum for a certain period of time, the court can order the payment of the fixed amount to the fixed amount, and the issue of whether to order the payment of the fixed amount of money belongs to the free discretion of the court (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu27587 delivered on January 25, 191). Thus, the court below's decision is based on the certain point of time during the future period, and the previous damages cannot be considered as a lump sum, and even if the court order the compensation of the fixed amount of money to the fixed amount of money, they cannot be deemed as violating the principle of pleading or exceeding the scope of discretion. There is no ground for appeal to reject this error.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.