(a) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which calculated the lost income of a minor victim who is a public official living in the rural area but has no agricultural infrastructure as urban daily wage;

(b) In a case where there is a composite disability on one part of the body, whether the rate of loss of labor ability resulting therefrom cannot exceed the rate of loss of labor ability where the said part is cut;

A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that calculated the lost income on the basis of urban daily wage on the ground that it cannot be determined that the victim's father is a police officer who is the victim's head of home and the mother is not engaged in agriculture and has no agricultural basis such as farming soil, etc., and is employed in the city on the ground that the victim's moving to the city or residing in the rural area is not determined as having been employed in the city on the basis that in principle, at least the daily income of the victim residing in the rural area at the time of the accident, can be deemed as having been able to obtain the daily daily wage of rural area, and only when the victim is deemed to have been residing in the urban area, which is the primary residential area.

B. The labor disability loss rate is related to telegraphic function. Thus, in a case where there is a composite disability on one side of a body, the labor disability rate due to such disability is cut off, and thus, the labor disability rate cannot be more severe than the labor disability rate in the case where the function of the body is entirely lost.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Da18713 delivered on October 7, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2951). Supreme Court Decision 93Da62348 delivered on April 26, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1471)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Uniform Cargo Co., Ltd. and one other Defendants, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na50958 delivered on November 30, 1994

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

The remaining final appeals shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of final appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The court below held that it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s residence at the time of the instant accident that is the area similar to the rural village in the Young-gu, Gangwon-gu, in which the Plaintiff would grow up to be able to be engaged in daily work in rural areas at least at least. Rather, according to macroscopic evidence, the Plaintiff’s father’s occupation is a police officer, and his mother is not engaged in agriculture as a family-based father, and there is no agricultural basis such as farmland. Although the above small-scale Eup is located in a rural area, it is anticipated that urbanization will become the center of small local administration, and it will become the long-term urbanization. In addition, the current nation-wide phenomenon has become a phenomenon, and it is anticipated that it will not be supported, according to the international trend, it is not always impossible to find employment in urban areas while living in the rural area due to the development of transportation, and it seems that the Plaintiff would be engaged in daily work in the urban area as the basis of his employment wage or employment wage in the urban area as the basis of his employment wage in the first urban area rather than his employment wage in the city.

However, in calculating the future lost income of victims living in rural areas at the time of the accident, at least the daily wage in rural areas should be calculated by deeming it possible to obtain it as a matter of principle, and only when the victims are recognized to have specific circumstances to live in the city, leaving the rural area where they are their dwellings, they may be calculated as urban daily wage. Among the reasons cited by the court below, the plaintiff's parents are not engaged in agriculture, and there is no agricultural basis such as farmland and farmland, etc., and all other general tendency or future uncertain prospects are excessive, and as such, the fact that the plaintiff's parents are irrelevant to agriculture as seen above cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff's parents move to the city, or are employed in the city while living in the rural area (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da18713, Oct. 7, 1994).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the calculation of lost income. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

On the second ground for appeal

Of the results of physical examination by the first instance court and the lower court on the premise that the rate of labor disability by parts of the Plaintiff’s physical disability caused by the instant accident is 64% in the face of the right upper part, 55% in the face of the upper part, 41% in the face of the shoulder, 41% in the face of the main part, and 18% in the complete part. However, even if part of the disability part of the right upper part is serious, the overall disability is merely that the whole disability part is lost in the right upper part, and it cannot be more severe than that of the upper part of the right upper part, and therefore, the rate of labor disability shall be limited to the rate of labor disability caused by the cutting of the upper part above the right upper part, and according to the Mablodrid list kept at the lower court, the rate of labor disability by the Plaintiff’s right upper part is 59% in the right upper part.

However, according to the judgment of the court below, 64% of the labor disability rate is recognized in the case where the plaintiff only suffered disability from the upper emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeral emeric emeral emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized the labor disability loss rate as the labor disability loss rate due to cutting the right upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the right on different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the evaluation of labor disability. Therefore, the ground for appeal on this point

On the other hand, according to the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below which did not recognize the loss of labor ability due to the reduction of labor capacity is just, and there is no error of law in violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss

On the third ground for appeal

Examining relevant evidence in accordance with the records, the sex surgery on the part of the skin loss or the part of the reflective construction, which is not upper to the right side of the court below as stated by the treatment in the future, shall include an incidental surgery on the right side of the theory of the lawsuit, so there is no reason to argue that the court below has neglected its judgment.

Concerning No. 4

The lower court acknowledged that: (a) the Plaintiff, on the ground of the record No. 12 and the result of fact-finding on the head of the Seoul University Hospital, had been provided with nursing up to now, including the period of hospitalization due to the instant accident; and (b) the Plaintiff recognized the necessary facts from the date of the instant accident to the date of completion of the instant medical treatment; and (c) recognized the first urban daily wage for one adult female or rural daily wage (after the date of the instant accident) from the time of the instant accident until the completion of the instant medical treatment to the date of the instant medical treatment.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below, we affirm the judgment of the court below that there is a need for an nursing of one adult woman from the accident of this case to the completion of future treatment.

Therefore, there is no reason to challenge this issue.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is justified only for the part against the plaintiff as it erred in calculating the daily wage and erred in the loss ratio of labor ability in calculating the daily wage. Thus, the part against the plaintiff should be tried again. Therefore, the part against the plaintiff is reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal of this case is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)