The case holding that it is not sufficient for adult women to live together in the state of a boom due to injuries, change the body body every 2-3 hours to prevent the crypt, add crypology periodically due to the crypology and crypology, and if the crypology should be prevented due to the crypology and crypology, the crypology of adult women is not sufficient.

The case holding that it is not enough for adult women to live together in a mixed state due to the aftermath disorder caused by injury, change the body body every 2-3 hours to prevent bathing, add urology and urine disorders on a regular basis due to urine and urine disorders, and if urine and urine disorders should be prevented, urine urine urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgicals.

Article 763 (Civil Act 393)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other (Law No. 460, Oct. 27, 1992, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Won-young, Counsel for the plaintiff 1 and one other

Attorney Lee Jong-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na4259 delivered on November 23, 1993

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 1 as to the property damage is reversed within the limit of 122,841,322 won, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Court.

The remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and the appeal by the plaintiff 2 are dismissed, and this part of the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below as to the circumstance of the accident in this case is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and if the factual relation is recognized by the court below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to offsetting negligence against the plaintiff 1 by taking into account the excessive ratio of negligence, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to offsetting negligence.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff 1's assertion that it is expected that the remaining disability caused by the injury of this case will be reduced by 30%, and that the remaining disability of the plaintiff 1 might be reduced by 24 hours in the future, and that the plaintiff 1 needs continuous opening of 1 adult female for the prevention of bathing during the expected life period, etc. as a result of fact-finding and experience rules with respect to the general hospital affiliated with the Hanyang National University, and that the plaintiff 1 needs continuous opening of 1st adult female for the prevention of bathing during the expected life period, and that the plaintiff 1's opening of 2nd adult female's opening of 2nd adult female's opening of 30 hours in the same case is not a dead price and an unknown state, and that the above symptoms of 24 hours in the future are unable to recover from the above symptoms, and even if opening of 2nd adult's opening of 4 hours in the beginning of the opening of 1st adult's opening of 14 hours in the beginning of the opening.

2. However, according to the appraisal statement of the Hanyang University Hospital, the number of plaintiffs 1 and 2 shall be 0: 1 to 9: ; 1 to 1 to 5 to 9 to 1 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 9 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 2; 2 to 3 to 9 to 1 to 1 to 9 to 1 to 9 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 2 to 1 to 1 to 3 to 1 to 9 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 9 to 2 to 1 to 3 to 1 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 4 to 1 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 2 to 1 to 1 to 2 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 5 to 1 to 1 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 1 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 3 to 1 to 2 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 3 to 3 to 2 to 1 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles as to the calculation of the expenses for nursing, and there is an error in the misapprehension of the necessary scope and the expenses for nursing. The grounds for appeal are with merit

On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, it is difficult for the court below to find that there is an error of law that found the consolation money of the plaintiffs under consideration.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, among the part of the judgment of the court below against the same plaintiff as to plaintiff 1's property damage, the case is reversed within the scope of 122,841,322 won, which is the scope of dissatisfaction with the appeal of this case, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal by the same plaintiff and the appeal by the plaintiff 2 are dismissed. This part of the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)