A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there were errors in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the burden of proof as to the existence of causation in determining the causal relationship between the victim's 5th place of pre-explosion and the traffic accident that the defendant alleged as congenital type of congenital type of punishment

(b) The case affirming the judgment below's measures calculated on the basis of the income of college graduates who have been enrolled in the three-year course of the livestock industry at universities or colleges at the time of accidents based on the occupational wage status survey report published by the Ministry of Labor.

A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the burden of proof on the existence of a causal relationship between the tort and the occurrence of damage should, in principle, be deemed to exist in the victim, but the burden of proof on the premise that there is no causal relationship between the victim's 5th Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal

B. The case affirming the court below's measures that calculated the lost income on the basis of this, on the ground that a male who left 25 years of age and nine months of age at the time of the accident had attended the livestock industry of a university and graduated from the above university, could have obtained the income equivalent to the income of college graduates from the 20 to 24 years of age in the report on the survey of actual wage status by occupation published by the Ministry of Labor, in calculating the lost income for the victims who have graduated from the above university.

(a) Articles 750, 261, and 183(b) of the Civil Act (Article 393);

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2713,2714 decided Aug. 11, 1981 (Gong1981, 14260) (Gong1991, 1614) decided May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1614) 91Da36116 decided Dec. 10, 1991 (Gong192,495)

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na6827 delivered on August 22, 1991

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court on this part.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

In full view of the whole purport of the argument as a result of the physical examination of the first instance court head of the Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synives, the court below acknowledged that the Plaintiff suffered injury due to the accident in the instant case, but still became unable to improve the number of Gynives and Synives, etc., and lost 32% of his labor ability as university graduates. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s 5th of the above 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 19.

However, the purport of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s 5th Twit-Bal was a congenital type certificate that does not relate to the instant accident is nothing more than denying the causal relationship between the instant traffic accident and the Plaintiff’s 5th Twit-Bal, whereas the burden of proving the existence of causal relationship between tort and damage should, in principle, be deemed to exist in the Plaintiff who is the victim. However, the lower court held that the Plaintiff had the burden of proving that there was no causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s 5th Twit-Bal and the instant accident. Thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the burden of proof.

In addition, the examination of the relevant evidence by comparing it with the records, and as to whether the current military register evidence of the plaintiff was caused by the accident in this case, the physical appraisal report of the non-party prepared by the court below stating the result of the physical appraisal commission adopted by the court below is shown only as "the above symptoms had not existed before the accident in the above date." The above 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 122 5 5 6 - 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 10 6 6 5 14 5 5 5 10.

Therefore, the court below should have carefully deliberated and determined whether the Plaintiff’s symptoms appeared or aggravated due to the instant accident, by examining the appraiser who appraised the Plaintiff’s body as a witness, or the doctor who treated the Plaintiff, or by entrusting the relevant examination or necessary investigation to the relevant public hospital affiliated with the Sejong Synas Hospital or the relevant public university. In addition, whether the Plaintiff’s symptoms occurred due to the instant accident, as well as whether the Plaintiff’s symptoms appeared or aggravated due to the instant accident.

Ultimately, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of causation between tort and the occurrence of damage, and it is clear that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

On February 11, 1990, the court below recognized that the plaintiff was a male who was 25 years old and 9 years old at the time when the accident in this case occurred and was 3 years old and enrolled in the livestock industry of the National University at the National University at the Livestock Industry at the National University on February 23, 191, but graduated from the above university on February 23, 1991. However, the court below calculated the plaintiff's actual profit on the basis that the plaintiff was able to obtain the income corresponding to the graduates of the university at least 20 years old and 24 years old and less than 1 year in the report on the fact-finding survey of wages by occupation in the year 1989 published by the Ministry of Labor without the accident in this case. According to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles like the theory of the lawsuit in the judgment below, and there is no ground

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)