[1] The method of determining the degree of contribution to the entire legacy in a case where the victim's after-the-counter legacy due to a traffic accident conflicts between the accident and the victim's spacifies

[2] In cases where the degree of contribution of the king was taken into account in calculating the rate of loss of labor ability to calculate the loss of lost income in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages, whether the degree of contribution of the king should be taken into account in calculating the loss of medical expenses, nursing expenses, etc. (affirmative in principle), and where there is a dispute as to whether the victim's subsequent disability was caused by the king, whether the burden of proof is borne (=victim)

[1] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act; Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Da100920 Decided May 13, 201 (Gong2011Sang, 1142) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da52294 Decided July 24, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1230) Supreme Court Decision 2016Da1475 Decided August 18, 2016

Plaintiff

DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (formerly: Dongbu Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys transferred-type et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2015Na912 decided May 16, 2017

Of the part against the defendant as to active damages, the part against the defendant as to 60,000,000 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Chuncheon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where a victim’s aftermatha was caused by a traffic accident and the victim’s aftermatha, the court may reasonably determine the degree of contribution to the whole aftermatha when determining the degree of contribution to the aftermatha, rather than to be medically accurately determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da100920, May 13, 201, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles and the facts duly admitted by the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the degree of contribution to the king, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, on the fact that the court below acknowledged the degree of contribution to the 10% of the pathral and

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages, if the degree of contribution of the king was considered in calculating the rate of loss of labor ability to calculate the loss of lost income, barring special circumstances, the offender’s contribution to the king shall be taken into account in calculating the loss of medical expenses, nursing expenses, etc. In the absence of special circumstances. In a case where the victim’s assertion that the king disability was caused by the king evidence, such assertion on the part of the perpetrator constitutes the denial of causation under the Civil Procedure Act, and the victim must prove the existence of causation, i.e., the relevant accident and the injury, and the existence of causation or absence of the king evidence (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da5294, Jul. 24, 2008; 2016Da14775, Aug. 18, 2016, etc.).

B. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, when calculating the lost income, the court below did not consider the degree of contribution of king in calculating the loss of nursing expenses without sufficient deliberation or explanation on special circumstances that should not be considered as the degree of contribution of 10% of the plaintiff's king's king was recognized as 10% of the plaintiff's contribution to the damage caused by the king and the aftermathal disorder. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on calculating the amount of damage in the event of king, which led to failure to exhaust all necessary

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the part against the defendant as to affirmative damages in the judgment below, the part against the defendant as to the amount of KRW 60,000,000, which falls under the scope of the defendant's appeal and damages for delay, are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)