(a) Food expenses that cannot be assessed as damages during hospitalization;

(b) It shall not be examined at a time when it can be compared in calculating the amount of future revenue of a soldier;

In addition to hospitalization costs of KRW 219,00, the original judgment calculated food expenses of KRW 219,00 as damages. Since food expenses are indispensable even if there is no tort, it would be consistent with the legal principles of offsetting profits and losses.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Red support in the first instance court, and 66Na2686 decided May 4, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2686 decided May 4, 1967

The part of the defendant's complaint against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals against plaintiffs 2 and 3 are dismissed.

The expenses incurred by an appeal against the plaintiff 2 and 3 shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Litigation Performers

According to the facts established by the original judgment, since this case was in April 10, 1966, and the new State Compensation Act was transferred, the provisions of Article 3 (5) of the State Compensation Act are not applied retroactively to this case's tort.

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

In addition to hospitalization costs of KRW 219,00, the original judgment calculated the amount of damages as food expenses of KRW 219,00 for hospitalization. Since food expenses to be paid in the course of hospitalization are indispensable even if there is no tort, if the expenses for food expenses are recognized as losses, the expenses for food expenses to be paid in the course of hospitalization should be deducted in calculating the amount of damages. However, without deliberation and determination thereon, the part of the original judgment, which recognized the food expenses to be paid in the course of hospitalization as damages, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of offsetting profit and loss. The arguments are with merit.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the facts duly established by the original judgment, Plaintiff 1, the injured party, is born (date of birth omitted), and the age to be operated is up to 55, so the injured party is able to operate up to February 2, 1999, and even if there was no tort in this case, it should have been calculated as damages the amount of future revenues by deliberating and determining the time of expulsion, but even though the original judgment did not deliberate and determine the time of expulsion, the amount of damages should be calculated as KRW 60,435 x 17.8537 (18.80-0.9523) x 17.537 (18.80-0.9523) x 988 x 17.23) x 60,435 x 17.8537 (18.80-0.9523) x 1,078,988 x 2

No statement that may be acknowledged as the grounds of appeal against Plaintiffs 2 and 3 shall be made.

Therefore, according to Articles 400 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.