A. Whether fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence is a fact-finding authority

(b) Whether the interim interest is deducted in cases where the treatment expenses incurred continuously and regularly after the extended period after the accident is calculated as a lump sum at the time of the accident and the interim interest is ordered to compensate for such lump sum and delay damages.

A. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

B. In the case of damages arising from a tort, which occurred continuously and regularly from the time of the accident in the future, due to the mere fact that the expenses were incurred continuously and regularly from the time of the accident, and if damages for delay are ordered from the date of the accident without deducting the interim interest, the part corresponding to the interim interest falls under substantial excessive compensation. Thus, even if the damages were incurred, it shall be calculated by deducting the interim interest in calculating the damages and the damages for delay from the date of the occurrence of the damages, separately from ordering the compensation for the damages and the damages for delay from the date of the accident.

A. Article 763 of the Civil Act (Article 396 of the Civil Act); Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 763 of the Civil Act)

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu1275 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2211) (Gong1992, 983 delivered on February 11, 1992) 91Da1207 delivered on April 12, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1419) B. Supreme Court Decision 93Da3029 delivered on October 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3054)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 200Do1488 delivered on May 2

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na22069 delivered on December 23, 1993

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the medical expenses of king shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court

The remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In the damages claim case, if the victim was negligent with respect to the occurrence or expansion of damages, it should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages, but the fact-finding or its ratio as to the grounds for offsetting negligence is subject to the discretionary authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da12073, Feb. 11, 192). In light of all the circumstances at the time of the accident of this case recognized by the record, the assessment of the victim's fault ratio is deemed appropriate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to comparative negligence, such

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the facts established by the court below, since it is impossible for the plaintiff to take a handful measure as a vegetable condition, there is a need to open two adult women per day for the supply of food, the treatment of plant products, the treatment of urines, the treatment of urines and urines, the treatment of bathing and urines, and frequent physical changes for the prevention of climatic diseases, etc., but the plaintiff is required to observe medical treatment in the chronic middle patient room through life, and when the plaintiff is in need of medical observation in the chronic middle patient room, he is provided with medical treatment under the nursing of the nurse for 24 hours. In this case, the plaintiff is required not to have a nurse separately, and the expenses of 13,000 won per day and 20,000 won per treatment day are required for additional expenses.

However, the plaintiff sought damages from nursing expenses under the premise that the above physical care expenses and treatment fees are additionally imposed on the premise that the plaintiff will receive medical treatment from chronic middle-patient rooms for twenty-four hours. It is not necessary to provide nursing services. Under the premise that two adults need nursing care from middle-patient rooms to middle-patient rooms. From July 19, 190 to the life expectancy, the court below rejected the above part of the expenses for nursing care expenses, which is more reasonably accepted by the plaintiff as part of the average treatment expenses for the pertinent period, based on the number of family members' nursing, and thus, the court below rejected the above part of the expenses for nursing care expenses, which is more reasonably accepted by the plaintiff from the previous medical care room than the average treatment expenses for the first time. However, from the above point of view, the court below rejected the part of the expenses for nursing care expenses, which is more reasonably accepted by the plaintiff, based on the number of medical care expenses for the first time to the end of oral argument.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records of this case, the defendant, on behalf of the defendant, has already paid the amount equivalent to KRW 61,65,570 out of the medical expenses of KRW 109,676,680 from December 29, 1989 to July 15, 1992, at the offset hospital where the non-party Japan Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. treated the plaintiff., on behalf of the defendant, the defendant had a duty to pay the above hospital the remainder of KRW 48,021,110, and the above insurance company has a duty to pay the above hospital the amount of KRW 109,676,680 out of the total medical expenses during the above period. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as to whether the above insurance company paid part of the above amount of KRW 48,021,110 in addition to the above hospital or not. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehensioning of the legal principles as to the above hospital.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) based on macroficial evidence, the plaintiff was hospitalized in the Offset hospital from the date of the accident in this case; and (b) recognized that medical expenses from July 16, 1992 to November 9, 1993, which the plaintiff sought as part of the claim, were 34,015,630 won; and (c) without deducting intermediate interest, the court below held that the plaintiff was liable to compensate the defendant for the money offsetting negligence and damages for delay from the date of the accident,

However, in the case of losses that occur continuously and regularly during a considerable period from the time of the accident, even if the losses were incurred in the future, it is reasonable to deduct and calculate the interim interest in calculating the amount of the damages in a lump sum, and in order to order the compensation for the damages from the time of the accident to the time of the occurrence of the damages, the amount of the damages and the damages for delay after the date of the occurrence of the damages shall be calculated as a lump sum at the time of the tort. This is because if the medical expenses incurred continuously and regularly, and if the compensation for damages was ordered from the date of the accident without deducting the interim interest even though the losses occurred considerably after the date of the accident, the part corresponding to the interim interest falls under the excessive compensation and is unfair.

According to the records of this case, the plaintiff continued to be hospitalized in the chronic middle patient's room during the life period in which two brain damage was caused by the accident of this case and received future treatment as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the medical expenses of the plaintiff claimed from July 16, 192 to November 9, 193, which the plaintiff was hospitalized in the above hospital during the above period and continued to receive the above treatment on a regular basis.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the medical expenses of the above king, which the plaintiff claimed, are damages sustained on a regular basis, and since two years and six months after the date of the accident in this case, the court below ordered the payment of damages for delay from the date of the accident without deducting the interim interest. Ultimately, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to damages for delay, and there is reason to point this out.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the treatment expenses of the king is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)