(a) The scope of compensation for damages, in cases where the victim's spaculation has contributed to the occurrence of losses due to the aggravation of accidents in competition with the accident; or

A. In a case where the king evidence of the victim of a traffic accident has contributed to the occurrence of the victim as a result of the prolongedization of the specific injury or the treatment period, and the expansion of the degree of disability after the completion of treatment, it is reasonable from the perspective of fair burden of damage to bear the corresponding amount of compensation out of total damages, depending on the degree recognized as having contributed to the occurrence of the result of the whole injury including the specific injury.

(b)In the case of ‘A', the court shall not necessarily have to make an accurate determination of the degree of contribution to the entire injury of the king, but may reasonably make a determination, taking into account all the circumstances, such as the cause and degree of the king, the part and degree of the injury, the correlation between the king and the entire injury, the treatment progress, the age, occupation and health conditions of the victim, as shown in the arguments;

Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 393 of the Civil Act)

A. (B) Supreme Court Decision 91Da39320 delivered on May 2, 1992 (Gong1992, 1965) (Gong1993Sang, 1368). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74 delivered on April 27, 198 (Gong198, 900) (Gong1991, 1741) Decided April 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1992). Supreme Court Decision 91Da31517 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1702)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Galll Lives Co., Ltd.

Busan District Court Decision 93Na8259 delivered on November 24, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts that the plaintiff, who had a king certificate, such as a flat sloping signboard expansion, the post pipe sloping change, etc., caused the accident in this case, such as a multi-pulphal sulphal sulphe escape certificate, sulphe, sulphe, sulphe, the left-hand sulphe, and the above sulphe, contributed about about 50% to the escape certificate of the sulpary sulphephe in part of the above injury. The defendant is liable to compensate the remaining damages except the portion to be borne by the above sulphe, among the damages suffered by the above injury as revealed by the plaintiff after the above accident, on the premise that it is reasonable to evaluate the degree of contribution to the whole injury, and in calculating the actual income for the treatment period from the time of the above accident to the completion of the treatment period, the above sulphe shall be reduced by 20% in consideration of the contribution ratio.

B. In a case where the king evidence of the victim of a traffic accident has contributed to the occurrence of the victim's occurrence of a specific injury, the prolonged period of treatment, and the expansion of the degree of disability after treatment as a result of the occurrence of the victim's occurrence, it is reasonable from the perspective of fair and equitable burden of damages to bear the amount of compensation corresponding to the victim's total damages (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da31517, Apr. 28, 1992). Thus, the court below's evaluation of the degree of contribution to the whole injury by the victim of the traffic accident and calculation of the amount of the daily income of the treatment period from the above accident to the completion of treatment as a result of the above degree of contribution, it shall be reasonable in accordance with the above legal principles.

In addition, the court does not necessarily have to make an accurate determination of such contribution ratio, but can make a reasonable determination by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the cause and degree of the king, the part and degree of the injury, the correlation between the king and the whole injury, the treatment progress, the victim's age, occupation and health condition, etc. In addition, even though there is little lack in the court below's explanation of the basis for calculating the contribution ratio of the plaintiff's king to 20%, the court below did not have calculated the contribution ratio of the king as 20% in consideration of all the above circumstances, and the judgment also seems to be appropriate. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts or physical disability due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the judgment of the court below. All the arguments are without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the process of the occurrence of the accident in this case, the court below recognized that there was an error that the plaintiff tried to turn to the left without paying attention to the operation of the sea-distance intersection where traffic is not controlled even though the plaintiff does not take place, and accordingly, the plaintiff's negligence ratio was 30%. In light of the records, the court below's determination of the above facts and determination are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle concerning comparative negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to see.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below's determination of the amount of income, as alleged in the plaintiff's decision, shall not be adopted on the ground that there is no evidence that there is rationality and objectivity to recognize the plaintiff's income and expenditure, and it is proper to take the alternative employment cost, which is an amount equivalent to the remuneration, in the case where the plaintiff employs a person with career, skill, and ability equal to the plaintiff, based on the actual income, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the calculation of income from the day.

4. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)