Standard for determining the rate of loss of labor ability due to physical disability in the area and area;

The case reversing the judgment below that determined in accordance with the empirical rule, where the loss rate of profit determined in accordance with the victim’s age, degree of education, nature and experience of the previous occupation, degree of physical skills, possibility of occupational expertise in similar occupation or other occupation, degree of probability of such occupational expertise, and degree of probability of such occupational expertise, as well as other social and economic conditions, and thus, the criteria for evaluation of the United States School Association (A.A.A.) are reflected in the 1948 Malodrid and 1963 Malodrid and 1963 Madrid were different from the calculation basis and the loss rate, and the labor disability loss rate is not just a simple rate of medical physical disability but is calculated by mixing the appraisal rate with the victim’s age, degree of education, career and skills, degree of physical disability, possibility of physical skills in similar occupation or other occupation, and the judge’s physical disability should be excluded (in calculating the loss rate of labor ability due to physical disability in the draft and territory, only the appraisal rate of 1963 1948 Ma484).

Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Da53426 Decided March 25, 1986 (Gong1986, 693) Supreme Court Decision 89Da982 Decided April 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1060), Supreme Court Decision 92Da29719 Decided July 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2237), Supreme Court Decision 94Da53426 Decided October 13, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3768), Supreme Court Decision 95Da41291 Decided January 26, 1996

[Judgment of the court below]

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (formerly: Korean Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Jeon Byung-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na54876 delivered on December 10, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul District Court. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below is justified in finding that the plaintiff has become a permanent disability in the area with the inner disability caused by the accident in this case, and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

2. On the third and fourth points

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence that the plaintiff did not wear a safety mother at the time of the accident, and did not take necessary measures to reduce the damage, such as proper treatment after the accident, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for the discussion.

3. On the second ground for appeal

The lower court recognized that the Plaintiff’s labor capability loss rate was 87% of the Plaintiff’s labor ability loss rate in the field of Ansan as a result of the lower court’s physical appraisal commission to the Chief of Seoul National University Hospital.

However, the above appraisal commission result accepted by the court below is hard to accept. According to the above appraisal commission result, 67% of the total appraisal statement of the 1963 Mablod's Malod's Malod's Malod's Malod's Malod's Malod's Malod's 1963 (hereinafter "Mablod's Mad') is expected to lose the work ability of 5% for Mad's Mad's Mad's 1948's Mad's Mad's Mad's 1948's Mad's Mad's Mad's 1963's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's 198's Mad's Mad's Mad's Mad's 1989's Mad's 989.

In addition, the rate of loss of labor ability is not just the rate of medical physical disability but the victim's age, educational degree, nature and career of the previous occupation, the degree of skilled physical disability, the degree of occupational disability in similar occupation or other occupation, the probability and probability of occupational disability in similar occupation and other occupation, and other social and economic conditions, which are determined based on the empirical rule, and the judge's arbitrary exclusion is reasonable and objective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Da538, Mar. 25, 1986; 95Da41291, Jan. 26, 1996). The court below merely considered the result of the plaintiff's physical disability appraisal as above, and there is no evidence to deem that it considered other necessary matters.

Therefore, there is a reason to discuss the judgment of the court below since it had undergone an evaluation of the plaintiff's loss of labor ability due to fact-finding in violation of the rules of evidence.

3. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding passive damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)