The judgment below

The part concerning lost income shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the defendant's breach of the duty of care, the court below determined that the defendant was liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case, on the ground that the defendant was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care as to the protection of patients, such as expectation that he may come into dynamic behavior, such as maring up on the rooftop operated by the defendant on the rooftop of the hospital operated by the defendant, and taking measures, such as enabling the plaintiff to observe the plaintiff's movement and appearance well, and allowing them to implement a pro rata program at a close range.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of care of doctors or medical institutions, or by violating

2. As to the calculation of the loss rate of labor ability, if any, by the king evidence

(a) In case the victim has already lost a part of the ability to work due to the king disability, in order to calculate the degree of the loss of ability to work caused by the accident concerned, it shall identify the degree of the loss of the present ability to work by adding up the disabilities caused by the accident in question and the disabilities caused by the accident in question, and at this time, it shall be done by a method reducing the degree of the loss of ability to work

Supreme Court Decision 94Da20730 Decided August 23, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 94Da20730 Decided February 2009