(a) Criteria for calculating damages for a traffic accident victim who has resided far from his/her families living in a rural community in the city;

B. The name of the neighbors and the claim for damages

(c) Whether or not to recognize the amount of future medical expenses as a result of a single physical examination from among several physical examinations, and whether or not to recognize the reduction of life expectancy by the result of another physical examination;

A. If a person injured due to a traffic accident had resided in the city at the time of the accident, his care shall be deemed to be the daily work in the city in case of ordinary circumstances, but if there are special circumstances, such as where all families, who are able to look at the daily life of the person after the discharge, live in the city by leaving away from his family members due to the workplace relations, etc., are living in the rural community, and are unable to live in the rural community, it is reasonable to view that the care for him falls under the daily work in the rural community.

B. Even if the victim suffered from an accident requiring opening, if the victim did not actually have received openings until the time of closing argument in the fact-finding court, the part claiming openings of openings would be groundless, but if the victim received openings of his/her parents, spouse, etc. due to such openings, regardless of whether or not he/she actually disbursed such openings to the victim, the victim may claim compensation against the perpetrator, regardless of whether or not he/she actually paid the openings expenses.

C. In a case where a post-treatment remains due to physical damage, it cannot be readily concluded that there exists a medical correlation between the amount of expenses for future treatment and the degree of remaining life-sustaining, and thus, in a case where multiple physical examinations have different opinions on the amount of expenses for future treatment and the degree of remaining life-sustaining, it cannot be said that the court recognized the amount of future treatment and recognized the degree of remaining life-sustaining treatment based on the results of one physical examination, and it cannot be said that it is unlawful as a method of evidence examination contrary to logical and empirical rules.

(a)Article 763 of the Civil Code, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 81Meu737 Decided April 13, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2013 Decided March 11, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 86Na166 delivered on October 22, 1986

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff as to property damage shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal above shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

If a person injured due to a traffic accident had resided in the city at the time of the accident, his care shall be deemed to be the daily work in the city in case of ordinary circumstances. However, if there are special circumstances, such as where all family members who are able to look at the daily life of the person after the discharge are living in the rural area because they were living in the city due to the workplace relations, etc., they are living in the rural area, and they are unable to live in the rural area, it is reasonable to view that the opening of the care is not the daily work in the city, but the daily work in the rural area.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below revealed that the plaintiff's other family members resided in rural communities before the occurrence of the accident in this case and the plaintiff's attorney's living in rural communities is not possible after discharge despite the plaintiff's assertion, and without making any judgment, the plaintiff was residing in the urban area at the time of the accident in this case and calculated the plaintiff's opening expenses on the basis of urban daily wages. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to opening expenses, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment which affected the plaintiff's attorney's failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the above assertion. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. We examine the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Even though the victim suffered from an accident, if the opening of the opening was not actually received until the closure of the pleadings at a fact-finding court, the part of the claim for opening of the opening of the defense until the time would be groundless. However, if the victim received the opening of a relative, such as his/her parents or spouse, etc. due to the necessity of such opening of the defense, regardless of whether or not the expenses for opening of the defense were actually disbursed, the victim may claim compensation against the perpetrator on the ground that he/she suffered a loss equivalent to the amount of the expenses for opening of the defense (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu737, Apr. 13, 1982; 85Meu2013, Mar. 11, 1986).

In this case, the facts that the plaintiff suffered from the accident in this case and the injury and the subsequent legacy caused the plaintiff to complete loss of all activities other than living in the living without the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the court below are recognized as well. If these circumstances are met, even from the date of the accident in this case to the date of the closure of the pleading in the court below, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff actually received the opening of the opening required for daily life by the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the opening of the plaintiff during the above period. Thus, the court below should be able to determine the legitimacy of the plaintiff's request for the opening of the opening of the opening during the above period.

Despite this, the court below rejected the part of the claim for nursing expenses during the above period solely on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff suffered actual loss of nursing expenses during the above period. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to nursing expenses, which led to the failure to exhaust all deliberations, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the remaining judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the arguments

3. We examine the ground of appeal No. 3 by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

In a case where a post-treatment remains due to physical damage, it cannot be determined that there exists a medical correlation between the amount of medical expenses in the future and the degree of the reduction of the life-sustaining team. Therefore, in a case where several physical examinations have different opinions on the amount of future medical expenses and the degree of the reduction of the life-sustaining team for the victim, one of them recognized the amount of future medical expenses according to one physical examination result and recognized the degree of the reduction of the life-sustaining team as illegal as a method of documentary examination contrary to logical and empirical rules. Therefore, there is no contrary argument.

4. In addition, the Plaintiff’s legal representative is dissatisfied with the claim for consolation money from the judgment below and is filing an appeal. However, there is no assertion in the grounds of appeal as to this.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding property damage shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the court below, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed, and the costs of the appeal against the dismissal of the appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition with

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)