In case of deduction of intermediary interest pursuant to the calculation method by year, the method of calculating the lost profit in case of excess of 20 percent of the realization rate of a single pension

In the case of deducting interim interest pursuant to the calculation method by year, when calculating the current value of the short-term interest deduction period after 36 years from the date when the current value of the short-term pension is more than 20, the victim shall not be paid excessive compensation by calculating the current value of the short-term pension on the numerical chart without asking for the long time when the current value of the short-term pension is applied.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu819 Decided October 22, 1985

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Busan Construction Machinery Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na410 decided October 10, 1985

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the opening of nursing costs shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the amount of damages equivalent to the number of chairs calculated on the basis of the above facts, based on the following facts, by comprehensively taking account of the following evidences, that the plaintiff needs to be 7,400,000 won in the number of previous and previous types of arms and legs, and that the number of persons required for 7,40,000 won in the number of previous and previous types of arms and legs, and that they are 3 years each, and not trust Eul evidence No. 8 (written confirmation), etc. contrary to the above recognition, and judged that the entry of No. 7 in the Evidence No. 7 (Medical Report, etc.) in the above fact does not interfere with the judgment of the court below, and recognized the amount of damages equivalent to the number of arms calculated on the basis of the above facts. Thus, if the court below compared the evidence preparation and judgment which were conducted in recognizing the above facts with the records, it is reasonable, and there is no

With respect to the second ground:

In a case where interim interest is deducted pursuant to the calculation method by year, when calculating the current value of a short-term interest deduction period after 36 years from the date when the current rate of a short-term interest is more than 20, the opinion of the party member that the victim should not be paid excessive compensation by preventing the interest accrued from exceeding the amount of the loss by applying 20 of the current rate of a short-term interest pension on the numerical table so that the current rate of a short-term interest payment should not be exceeded. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is evident that the court below determined that the plaintiff incurred the loss of the current amount and calculated the current amount by applying 20 years of the current rate of a short-term interest payment on the numerical table so that the interest accrued from the present family does not exceed the amount of the loss (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu819, Oct. 22, 1985).

Ultimately, in calculating the current price of damage caused by the disbursement of nursing expenses in the judgment of the court below, the application of the present price rate of short-term pension under the Hopmanman Calculation Act exceeding 20 is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the calculation of damages.

However, in calculating the price of the auxiliary equipment for the plaintiff, the court below calculated the present price by deducting the interim interest pursuant to the Hofman Accounting Act from the total value of the auxiliary equipment to be purchased 11 times every three years from the time when 3 years and 6 months elapsed from the time of the accident until the time when 33 years and 6 months elapsed from the time of the accident. Thus, the court below's determination of the present price of damage caused by the above auxiliary equipment cost is justifiable.

In the end, it is recognized that only the part concerning the calculation of the opening costs in the paper is well-grounded, and if this part is not reversed, it is considerably contrary to justice and equity.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining grounds of appeal are without merit. The costs of appeal as to this part are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)