[1] The measures to be taken by the court to find facts by adopting a written appraisal as evidence where the same appraiser has submitted contradictory or obscure opinions on the same appraisal matter

[2] In a case where the victim's after-the-counter legacy due to an accident conflicts between the accident and the victim's spathy, the scope of compensation for damages

[3] The method of calculating the rate of loss of labor ability in the event of a king certificate

[4] In a case where there is a dispute as to whether the victim's harm after the victim's assertion was caused by the king evidence, the person who bears the burden of proof (=victim)

[1] In a case where the same appraiser has a contradictory or very obscure opinion on the same appraisal matter, an affirmative measure should be taken, such as ordering the appraiser to supplement a written appraisal or disclosing an accurate opinion through examination method as a witness, etc., unless other evidence is specifically supported in order for the court to directly recognize the same appraisal matter by employing the written appraisal as evidence.

[2] If a victim's testamentary gift caused by an accident conflicts between the accident and the victim's spathy, it is reasonable to hold the victim bear the corresponding amount of compensation according to the degree that the accident contributed to the occurrence of the result of testamentary gift as a result of the accident, from the perspective of fair burden of damage.

[3] In order to calculate the degree of the loss of labor ability caused by the pertinent accident in a case where the victim already lost part of the ability to work due to the king disability, it is reasonable to find out the degree of the loss of labor ability due to the pertinent accident and to calculate the degree of the loss of labor ability by reducing the degree of the loss of labor ability due to the pertinent accident.

[4] In a case where the perpetrator asserts that the aftermath of the victim's assertion was caused by the king, the perpetrator's assertion is the denial of the causal relationship under the litigation law, and therefore the victim must be proved to have actively or passive causal relationship between the accident and the injury in question, i.e., the existence of the causal relationship, or the absence of the aftermathic disorder.

[1] Articles 187, 312, and 313 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 187 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da10955 delivered on June 10, 1993 (Gong1994Ha, 1934) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da1517 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 82), Supreme Court Decision 94Da5967 delivered on September 10, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2992), Supreme Court Decision 96Da2468 delivered on May 15, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1617) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Da20211 delivered on August 12, 194 (Gong1994Ha, 2300) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da196389 delivered on July 196, 195 (Gong194, 294Da197984 delivered on July 197, 1994)

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

New Co., Ltd. and one other (Defendant Law Firm Seocho, Attorneys Hong Sung-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 98Na3129 delivered on November 27, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the assessment of the loss rate of labor ability

In a case where the same appraiser has inconsistent or very obscure opinion on the same appraisal matter, the court shall take active measures such as ordering the appraiser to supplement a written appraisal or disclosing accurate opinion through examination method as a witness, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da10955 delivered on June 10, 1993), unless other evidence is specifically supported (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da10955 delivered on June 10, 1993).

The judgment of the court of first instance, cited by the court below, adopted a physical appraisal document for the preparation of a general date outside the Busan University Hospital, and recognized that the plaintiff 1 lost 25% of the working ability of the plaintiff 1 as a witness for the purpose of this case on January 7, 1997 due to injuries such as scBride salone salone salone salone and salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone salone sal one salone salone sal one salone sal one sal one sn two s.

2. As to the degree of contribution to the king

If the aftermath of the victim of a traffic accident is caused by the concurrent occurrence of the accident and the king of the victim, it is reasonable to make the victim bear the equivalent amount of compensation according to the degree that the accident contributed to the occurrence of the aftermath of the accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da24668, May 15, 1998). If the victim has already lost part of the labor ability due to the aftermath of the accident, it is reasonable to determine the degree of the loss of the current labor ability due to the accident by combining the disability existing in king and the disability caused by the accident in question in order to calculate the degree of the loss of the labor ability due to the said accident (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da20730, Aug. 23, 1996). Meanwhile, the defendant's assertion that the aftermath of the plaintiff's disability was caused by the denial of the causal relationship between the plaintiff's injury and the accident in question.

According to the judgment of the court below, the first instance court, and its adopted evidence, the plaintiff 1 received 1,735,120 won for lump-sum disability compensation under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act from the headquarters of the Daejeon District Headquarters of the Republic of Korea on June 8, 1992, the plaintiff 1 received an application for the payment of disability compensation for the above plaintiff 1,735,120 won for the above plaintiff 1's work disability compensation payment under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff 1's above determination on the ground that the plaintiff 1 suffered from occupational accident on January 29, 192, which was before the accident of this case, due to the suspension of 1/2 or more of 1 balance of the left-hand part of the accident of this case, the plaintiff 1 received the above disability compensation for the above plaintiff 1's occupational disability compensation for the reason that the plaintiff was unable to properly suffer from the above disability grade 10,000 won due to the above reasons.

However, examining the reasons for the payment of lump-sum disability compensation benefits as seen earlier and the contents of the disability, it is necessary to prove that the above plaintiff was suffering from a post-explosive disorder, and that there was no post-explosive disorder. However, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above pre-explosive disorder was lost solely on the ground that the above plaintiff was paid the lump-sum disability compensation benefits as seen earlier, and therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above plaintiff was deprived of labor ability due to the pre-explosive disorder. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the degree of contribution to explosive disorder, or by putting the burden of proof on it, which affected the conclusion of

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)