An example recognizing the need of a guardian;

An example recognizing the need of a guardian;

Article 763 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Dae Dong-dong Transportation Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na522 delivered on November 17, 1981

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the opening expenses between 16 months and 16 months from the date of the accident in this case, and rejected the result of the physical examination commissioned by the court below which recognized the need for opening expenses after the closing of argument in the court below. Rather, the court below dismissed the claim on the ground that it is not necessary to open the plaintiff's physical examination to the extent of the plaintiff's physical disability according to the results of physical examination of the receipt of the appraiser's change in the court of first instance, part of the witness boom, and the whole purport of the oral argument. In short, the court below is interpreted to have rejected the credibility of the results of physical examination commissioned by the court below in light of the appraisal result by the appraiser in the court of first instance

(2) However, in light of the above appraisal contents, the plaintiff's physical disability status at the time of appraisal is light condition 1. The left-hand end of 2. The plaintiff's physical disability condition at the time of appraisal is light condition, the left-hand end of 2. The left-hand part of c. light c. light and light c. light c. light, and 4. light c. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light and mental condition, but light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light, but light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f. light f., we need f. light f. light f.

However, although the above appraisal provides that a little number of defenses are expected to continue to provide physical treatment and that a person must undergo a training in his own life, such statement alone is required from the above appraisal date ( December 4, 1980) to the closure date ( November 3, 1981), but it is not sufficient to determine that it is unnecessary thereafter. Furthermore, the credibility of the result of the physical appraisal entrustment conducted adjacent to the conclusion date of the original judgment based on such appraisal cannot be rejected.

In addition, when the court below examines the testimony of the court below-appellant, which is another evidence that denies the necessity of opening in the future, according to the records, there is a statement that the plaintiff can go against the plaintiff in writing by neglecting the contents, but it is insufficient to recognize that this alone does not require opening.

(3) Ultimately, the court below's determination that there is no need for a future guardian without reliance on the results of physical examination by the first instance court in light of the results of physical examination by the witness and the testimony by the witness booming the witness is an illegal act that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the evidence cooking contrary to the empirical rule, which constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)