(a) Reasons to be considered in offsetting negligence;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that deemed the victim's negligence as 80%

(c) Method of determining the loss rate of labor ability;

If the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, such reason should be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of compensation for damage by the perpetrator, and when calculating the ratio of negligence between the two parties, the situation related to the accident should be sufficiently considered in light of the purpose of the system of fair burden of damage. It should not be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity even if it is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court to determine the fact-finding or its ratio

02. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that deemed the victim's negligence to be 80%

03. When calculating the lost profits through the method of applying the rate of loss of labor ability, the rate of loss of labor ability shall, instead of a simple rate of physical disability, be determined reasonably and objectively based on the empirical rule, by taking into account the victim’s age, degree of education, nature of previous occupation and work experience, degree of occupational experience, degree of skill skill, physical and functional level and other similar occupational categories and the probability and probability thereof, and other social and economic conditions;

Article 763 (Article 396, 763 (Article 393) of the Civil Act.

Supreme Court Decision 91Da14291 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2132), Supreme Court Decision 92Da32821 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993, 260), Supreme Court Decision 92Da39320 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong1992, 1965), 92Da27614 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong193, 236), Supreme Court Decision 92Da5330 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong193, 2013)

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea Veterans Welfare Corporation and 2 others, Defendants Law Firm Dong-dong Office, Attorneys Noh Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na64526 delivered on June 9, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff 1 regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by Plaintiffs 1 and the remaining appeals by Plaintiffs 1, excluding Plaintiff 1, are dismissed, respectively.

The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion shall be borne by each party.

1. We examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of appeal.

If the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, such reason must be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of compensation for damage by the perpetrator, and when calculating the ratio of negligence between the two parties, in light of the purpose of the system of fair burden of damage, all circumstances related to the occurrence of the accident should be sufficiently taken into account. The fact-finding authority or setting the ratio of negligence should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity even if it is the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da32821, Nov. 27, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence, found that the plaintiff 1 had a strong inflammable substance in the process of the accident as indicated in its reasoning, and caused the plaintiff 1's fault by excessively approaching the rubber wind line for the publicity of this case which is anticipated to contain a strong inflammable substance. Such plaintiff 1's negligence, along with the defendants' negligence, caused the accident of this case, and recognized the ratio of negligence as 80 percent and offset the negligence.

However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendants neglected in a park where people passage even after the removal time of the rubber pipe for the publicity of this case containing hydrogen passed, and the accident of this case occurred. Thus, even if the defendants' negligence is more than plaintiff 1's negligence, it cannot be concluded that the defendants' negligence can easily be presumed that the general public's use of a strong inflammable substance in the rubber balloon for propaganda purpose constitutes 80%. Under such circumstances, the court below's approval of the ratio of plaintiff 1's negligence as 80% cannot be remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

The argument pointing this out is with merit.

2. The Plaintiffs did not pay the grounds of appeal regarding the consolation money portion.

3. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

When calculating the lost profit by applying the rate of loss of labor ability, the rate of loss of labor ability shall not be simple physical disability but be determined in a reasonable and objective manner based on the empirical rule, taking into account the victim’s age, level of education, nature of previous occupation, work experience, degree of skill skill, degree of occupational experience, physical and functional level, and the probability and probability of occupational change in similar occupation or other occupation, and other social and economic conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu2102, Nov. 13, 1990; 90Da9315, Apr. 12, 1991; 91Da39320, May 22, 1992).

In light of the records, the decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the law of incomplete deliberation or the rules of evidence as pointed out therein.

The argument is nothing more than that of the court below's acknowledgement of facts and the cooking of evidence.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Plaintiff 1 regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal by Plaintiff 1 and the appeal by Plaintiffs 1 except Plaintiff 1 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the remaining plaintiffs and Defendants shall be assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)