[1] The method of determining the method of continuing medical treatment or nursing expenses

[2] In a case where the prediction of life expectancy is uncertain, the method of calculating losses for future medical expenses and nursing expenses

[3] In a case where the prediction of life expectancy is uncertain and thus a payment order is issued by mixing a lump-sum and a regular amount, the calculation method of lost profit losses

[4] The nature of judgment on the part and degree of the victim of a personal accident

[1] In principle, whether the injured party who suffered losses for which continuous medical expenses, nursing expenses, etc. are to be paid in the future due to the aftermathy disability of the injured party caused by the tort is entitled to choose at will the claimant himself/herself at his/her own discretion: Provided, That when it is difficult to determine the continuous period of the disability or the degree of the remaining remaining life expectancy, etc. as in the case of plants, etc., it is difficult to determine the continuous period of the disability or the degree of the reduced amount, etc., and it is apprehended that the compensation by the method of lump-sum payment would bring about a significant unreasonable result in light of the social justice and the ideology of equity, even if the claimant for damage claims the payment by lump-sum payment, the

[2] In calculating losses for future medical treatment and nursing expenses, in case where the prediction of a victim's life is uncertain, the victim shall be ordered to make a lump-sum payment and the subsequent period shall be ordered to pay the money for the loss for the period that the victim is deemed to continue to survive. Thus, it cannot be said that the court went beyond the court's discretion in calculating the amount of money for the subsequent period.

[3] The court below ordering payment of lump-sum and regular payments on the basis of the period deemed to be a lump sum and regular payments within the maximum working age with respect to future medical expenses and nursing expenses on the ground that the prediction of life expectancy is uncertain, and the court below ordering payment of lump-sum and regular payments on the basis of the period deemed to be a lump sum living by the plaintiff, and ordering the payment thereof, shall be the lump sum after deducting the interim interest, and the lost profit for the period deemed to be a lump sum for which the plaintiff is deemed to be alive when ordering the payment thereof, and the lost profit for the period thereafter shall be the lump sum after deducting the interim interest from the amount after deducting the living cost, and the damage equivalent to the living cost from the lost profit until the maximum working age after that period shall be ordered to

[4] Whether the victim of a personal accident needs to take care after the completion of treatment, and the degree of such care should be determined by considering all specific circumstances, such as the victim’s age, mental condition, educational degree, and social and economic conditions, based on the contents of the subsequent disability revealed through an expert’s appraisal, as a whole, and must be evaluated according to empirical and logical rules in light of the empirical and logical rules.

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da30515 delivered on June 9, 1995 (Gong1994Sang, 806), Supreme Court Decision 96Da21591 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2863 delivered on November 27, 1992), Supreme Court Decision 92Da2673 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong1993Sang, 255), Supreme Court Decision 93Da4364 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong194, 1994Sang, 130) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da3989 delivered on June 36, 1998 (Gong1994, 1309) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da30989 delivered on December 16, 1996 (Gong194, 1397Da9639894).

Plaintiff

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seosan General Law Office, Attorneys Jeon Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 98Na9707 delivered on January 13, 2000

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding passive property damage from April 5, 2017 to the maximum working age is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Busan District Court Panel Division. The Defendant’s remaining appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the first and second points

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff could survive at least about 21 years from the time of the instant accident, but it is difficult to predict the possibility of survival thereafter, but determined that the Plaintiff’s future regularly incurred damages (excluding the lost profit part) based on the life table of first-aid Korean people, taking into account the foregoing circumstances, shall be ordered from the instant accident to the next 21 years, and shall be ordered from the date of the accident to the next 21 years, and shall be ordered to pay the amount in lump sum, after which the interim interest is deducted from the time of the accident to the maximum working age of 21 years after the date of the accident. As to the lost profit damages, the lower court ordered the Plaintiff to pay in lump sum for future medical expenses, excluding the physical treatment expenses, and for the nursing expenses, from the time of the accident to 21 years after the date of the accident, and ordered the Plaintiff

In principle, whether the injured party who suffered losses for which continuing medical expenses, nursing expenses, etc. are to be paid in the future due to the aftermath of the injury suffered by tort may choose at will his own discretion, who is the claimant for damages, in principle, to claim compensation for the said losses and payment in a lump sum: Provided, That in a case where it is difficult to determine the continuous period of, or the degree of remaining remaining remaining remaining remaining life, etc. as in the case of plants, etc., and it is apprehended that the compensation in the lump sum payment method would bring about a significant unreasonable result in light of social justice and the ideology of equity, even if the claimant for damages claims the payment in lump sum, the court may render a judgment ordering the payment in its own discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da21591, Aug. 23, 1996).

In addition, in calculating the damages for medical expenses and nursing expenses in the future, where the prediction of the victim's life is uncertain, the victim shall be ordered to pay a lump-sum amount and the subsequent period shall be the order to pay the regular fund on the condition of the victim's survival. Thus, it cannot be said that the victim started to go beyond the court's discretion (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da26673, Nov. 27, 1992; 93Da43644, Mar. 25, 1994).

Therefore, although it is uncertain that the court below's prediction is uncertain, but at least 21 years from the time of the accident in this case, the damages for future medical expenses and nursing expenses are considered to be alive in the future, and the damages for future medical expenses and nursing expenses during the time when the plaintiff is alive in the lump sum shall be in accordance with the above legal principles. There is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of legal principles as to compensation for installments.

We cannot accept the allegation of this point in the grounds of appeal.

However, the lower court ordering payment of lump sum and regular payments on the basis of the period determined to be a certain time for the Plaintiff to continue to exist as a lump sum within the maximum working age, on the ground that the prediction of life expectancy was uncertain, and on the basis of the period determined to be the maximum working age, ordered payment for the future medical expenses and nursing expenses, should have ordered the Plaintiff to make a lump sum payment on the basis of such a lump sum and regular payments on the basis of the period determined to be the maximum working age. In so doing, the amount of lost profit for a period deemed to be the victim’s life is calculated as a lump sum and, even in ordering payment thereof, the victim’s life should be the lump sum after deducting intermediate interest. The amount of lost profit up to the maximum working age thereafter should have been the lump sum from the

Nevertheless, in recognizing loss of lost profits for the period from April 5, 2017 to the maximum working age, which was 21 years after the accident of this case, the court below ordered to pay in a lump sum the total amount of lost profits, after deducting intermediary interest, when recognizing loss of lost profits for the period from April 5, 2017, which was 21 years after the accident of this case, the ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

On the third ground for appeal

Determination as to whether the victim of a personal accident is in need of nursing after the completion of treatment and the degree thereof shall be based on the expert’s appraisal and by considering all specific circumstances, such as the victim’s age, mental condition, educational degree, and social and economic conditions, based on the contents of the subsequent disability revealed through the expert’s appraisal, and shall be based on a normative assessment in light of the empirical and logical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da46747 delivered on December 22, 1998).

In light of the record, the plaintiff's ability to work is lost by 100% due to the lack of her ability to work due to severe intelligence reduction, practical fishing certificate, the right-hand part part-hand part-out part-hand part-out part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part of the part-time part-time part-time part-time part-time part.

We cannot accept the allegation of this point in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, among the lower judgment, the part against the Defendant regarding passive property damage from April 5, 2017 to the maximum working age is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, and the Defendant’s remaining appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)