The case holding that it is sufficient for an adult artist to be an adult woman;

Unless there are other special circumstances, if it is sufficient that a person can not move alone on his own due to a aftermathy, such as 6 brain pathy, etc. caused by an accident, and that a person can not get married alone, and if it is necessary for a person to take care, he/she shall always take care of the patient at all times for 24 hours a day, and he/she shall not continue to take care according to the patient's request or necessity, but he/she shall have one adult female for one day, unless there are other special circumstances.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Meu23193 Decided May 9, 1989

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na8663 delivered on August 18, 1988

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff cannot move alone with the 6th cerebral macy, etc. on the right side of the conversation disorder of the accident of this case, and that the plaintiff needs nursing and that two adult nursings need to be provided with 8 hours a day, excluding the surface hours in light of the degree of the plaintiff's Nanae's chronic disorder, and calculated the expenses necessary for nursing based on the above fact.

However, in such a case, the patient's outline is not more than 16 hours a day, but not more than 24 hours a day, and the patient's outline is constantly attached to the patient's side, but it is not necessary to continue to engage in the patient's opening, but it is sufficient that the patient's opening will take part in the patient's vision intermittently, so barring any other special group's circumstances, the opening person shall be deemed sufficient as one adult woman for one day (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu21393, May 9, 199), barring any other special group's circumstances. (See Supreme Court Decision 88Meu21393, May 9, 199) In calculating the opening expense, it is erroneous for the court below to believe that the court below should continue

The appeal pointing this out is with merit. 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. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)