Whether or not the abstract disorder or the loss of labor ability caused by external appearance

In the event that there is an ex post facto disability caused by a tort, even if the fact alone does not cause an immediate physical activity function, it is reasonable to view that there is a loss of labor ability due to an ex post facto disability, if the trend has significantly impact on future employment, job selection, promotion, possibility of transfer, etc., in relation to the injured party's gender, age, etc.

Civil Act Article 763 (Article 393)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea National Assembly (Korea National Assembly)

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na5024 delivered on June 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case shall be within the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Accordingly, the court below's evaluation of the ratio of comparative negligence against the victim shall be appropriate, and there is no error of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal principles of comparative negligence. There is no ground for appeal

2. It is reasonable to view that there is a loss of labor ability due to drilling disorder in the event that there is an ex post facto disability caused by an ex post facto disability in external appearance, even if the physical function does not immediately hinder the physical activity function, such fact alone does not affect the injured party's future employment, job selection, promotion, possibility of change of occupation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da9773 delivered on August 27, 1991). In this regard, the court below's determination that the ratio of the loss of labor ability to Plaintiff 1's disability was 15% is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds or misapprehension of legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to support the argument.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)