(a) Examples that the duties of licensed administrative agents may be performed by the time they reach the age of 60;

(b) The method of calculating the degree of contribution to the aftermath of an accident in the event that a legacy occurs due to the competition between the accident and spathrosis;

(c) The method of calculating lost earnings where there is no evidence that an accident cannot be engaged in the previous occupation despite the aftermath of such accident;

A. Since the business of a licensed administrative agent is not required to do special physical activities, it can be engaged in the business until the age of 60 expires.

B. In a case where an accident concurrently happens in the course of a branch of a branch and another accident, the amount of compensation corresponding thereto shall be borne by the perpetrator according to the degree of contribution deemed to have contributed to the occurrence of the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the court shall reasonably determine the degree of contribution by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the cause and degree of the king, the correlation between the king and the legacy, the degree of correlation between the victim's age, occupation and health

C. When there is no evidence that the victim could not be engaged in the previous occupation due to the aftermath of the accident, the amount of the lost profit should be assessed as the amount corresponding to the ratio of the loss of labor ability among the incomes that the victim was engaged in the occupation at the time of the accident.

(a)Article 763(a) of the Civil Code; Article 2 of the Administrative Secretary Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Administrative Secretary Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 76Da1877 delivered on September 13, 197, 80Da1213 delivered on October 14, 1980, and 82Meu818 delivered on October 12, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Kim Young-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Limited Partnership Mobilization Corporation (Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na1823 delivered on December 10, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A. As to the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's general administrative clerk's work may be performed until the age of 65 expires, the court below acknowledged the non-party witness's testimony alone and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. However, in full view of the witness's testimony and the purport of the provisions of Article 2 of the Administrative and Judicial Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since the above witness's testimony and the purport of the provision of Article 2 of the same Act are not required for special physical activities, the court below recognized that the person can be engaged in such work until the age of 6

In comparison with the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the violation of rules of evidence, the rule of experience, and the profit calculation of the victim as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit, and the precedents of the theory of lawsuit cannot be appropriate in this case. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss

In the event of a physical legacy of the victim due to a traffic accident, it is not the only cause for the accident, but the subsequent legacy is the only cause for the accident, if the victim's previous branch of branch of branch of branch of branch of branch of branch of branch of the victim and such subsequent legacy is caused only by the accident. It is logical that the damage caused by the subsequent legacy cannot be determined to be caused only by the accident, and it is also the same in the position of the fair burden of

In such a case, it is reasonable to impose the amount of compensation corresponding to the degree of contribution that the accident contributed to the occurrence of the result of legacy on the perpetrator. Therefore, in determining the degree of contribution, the court should reasonably determine the degree of contribution by taking into account the cause and degree of the king, the correlation with the king. The victim's age, occupation and health conditions, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was hospitalized for the injury caused by the accident in this case from 1984 to 30 October 1984, but there remains symptoms of king witness king, scoppy and scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic.

In comparison with records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or legal principles as to the apportionment of damages. There is no reason for the argument.

C. As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff's assertion that in calculating the plaintiff's lost earnings, the plaintiff could no longer be engaged in the administrative post as a result of the accident in this case, and it should be based on the amount of income which can be obtained from the above occupation less the income which can be obtained by engaging in the daily work with the remaining labor ability, and the amount which can be obtained by deducting the income which can be obtained by the plaintiff from the remaining labor ability. The court below decided that the part which the plaintiff's physical appraisal as a result of the judgment in the judgment of the court below is not suitable for performing the work of the administrative post should be evaluated as the amount equivalent to the ratio of the labor ability of the court below among the income which the plaintiff obtained by engaging in the above occupation at the time of the accident in this case, since there is no other evidence to recognize it in light of the result of the fact inquiry and the nature of the administrative post, and therefore, the amount of the plaintiff's lost profit should be evaluated as the amount corresponding to the ratio of the labor ability of the court below.

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

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)