A. The legitimacy of recognizing the physical disability status, which falls under medical judgment, as evidence, while adopting the result of an appraisal commission as evidence (negative)

B. The legitimacy of recognizing the loss rate of labor ability by taking into account only the result of the appraisal of the loss rate of labor ability calculated by applying the standards of Mabrid to the standards of the Association of the United States (negative)

(c) Guidelines for determining the rate of loss of labor ability due to physical disability;

A. According to the appraisal statement, the appraiser is similar to the plaintiff's disability condition in Section 3, Section 1 of the Mabrid Evaluation Table, which is subject to medical judgment, so the judgment should be respected so that the above appraisal result is admitted as evidence, but without any reason, it is against the rules of evidence that the court below recognized that it falls under Section 2. B of the same Table, which is different items.

B. The criteria for the evaluation of the loss rate of labor ability due to physical disability and the criteria for the evaluation of the US Student Association (A.M.A) are different respectively from the calculation basis, structure, and loss rate, so it cannot be mixed with one another. Even though the court below determined the state of physical disability according to the standards of the US Student Association, and recognized the loss rate of labor ability by taking into account only the result of the appraiser's appraisal that appraised the loss rate of labor ability by applying the standards of Mabrid, it is against the rules of evidence.

(c) The rate of loss of labor capacity shall not be a simple rate of physical disability but a rate of victim's age, degree of education, nature of previous occupation, career and degree of skilled skills, physical skill level, occupational ability level in similar occupational categories or other occupational categories, the probability and probability thereof, and other social and economic conditions, which are determined by the rule of experience and determined by the rule of experience, and which is reasonable and objective to be excluded by the judge.

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

C. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1613 decided Jun. 23, 1987 (Gong1987,123) (Gong1987,1717) decided Dec. 8, 1987 (Gong1988,273), 87Meu1799 decided Jan. 19, 1988 (Gong1988,448), 87Meu1354 decided Mar. 8, 198 (Gong198,654) (Gong198,654) decided Apr. 27, 198, 198 (Gong198, 198, 198, 198, 198, 198, 198, 198, 207Da1983989 decided Apr. 19, 198, 209)

Awarding decorations

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1480 decided May 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na21260 delivered on December 8, 1988

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

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

The court below found that the plaintiff suffered from the injury of this case as at the time of the accident due to the part of the commission of physical appraisal to the head of the Katoluth of the first instance court on whether or not the plaintiff suffered from the accident of this case's car accident, but still, the plaintiff lost 26 percent of the labor ability to engage in the plaintiff's job as the Banath of 26 percent (see the B and B part of the Malod's Malod's Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad' Mad's Mad's Mad'

However, there are many parts that are difficult to accept, as well, the contents of obstacles to the plaintiff and the results of the above appraisal commission, which are accepted by the court below.

First of all, according to the above appraisal statement, as the plaintiff's existing disability, only the plaintiff's existing disability recognizes Do's urban unstableness and Do's old and long-standing old and long-standing old and long-standing old and the Do's old and Do's old and the court below did not recognize the same as to the passage, etc. of the right chain, but did not recognize it as to the right chain, etc., the court below committed a mistake that recognized the same as the existing disability of the right chain, the left side

In addition, the lower court did not have any grounds for recognizing this part even though the Plaintiff’s disability status falls under Mabroe Section II and B of the Mabroe Evaluation Table. According to the above appraisal statement, the appraiser is similar to Mabroe Section III (1) of the Mabroe Evaluation Table for the Plaintiff’s disability status, which falls under the medical judgment matters, and thus, the judgment should be respected as long as the results of the above appraisal entrustment are admitted as evidence, without any reason.

And the above appraisal results are also the same.

According to the appraisal statement and fact-finding inquiry statement, the plaintiff's disability did not have any corresponding item and disability according to the Mabrid's criteria, but according to the evaluation criteria of the American Association of School (A.M.A.), 6 percent of the whole person's work ability is anticipated. In other words, for calculating the rate of loss of work ability by occupation, the plaintiff's disability status is judged similar to Mabrid III and I from among the items prescribed by the Mabrid's criteria, and the rate of loss of work ability is appraised as 21 percent by applying 8 of the occupational coefficient based on the Mabrid's disability grade table 41 time for each occupation. This is nothing more than the difference between the evaluation methods of the US Association of School and Mabrid's disability grade table. As such, the above two criteria are different from the calculation basis and the loss rate of work ability, so it seems that there is a problem that the above two criteria can be combined with each other.

The labor disability loss rate is not just a simple rate of physical disability but rather a victim's age, educational degree, nature of the previous occupation, career and level of skill skill training, physical skill level, occupational expertise in similar occupation or other occupation, probability and probability of occupation in similar occupation and other social and economic conditions, and the judge's arbitrary exclusion is reasonable and objective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Meu538, Mar. 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu296, Jun. 23, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1613, Oct. 13, 1987). Thus, the court below did not seem to have taken into account some parts of the result of physical disability appraisal in the first instance solely when recognizing the plaintiff's labor disability loss rate, that result is difficult to accept as it is, only the result of appraisal that is difficult to accept as it is, and other necessary matters.

원심판결은 채증법칙에 어긋난 사실인정으로 원고의 노동능력상실에 관한 ㅠ평가를 그르쳤으며 아울러 심리조차 제대로 다한 바 없는 잘못으로 인하여 판결결과에 영향을 미친 위법을 범하였다 할 것이고 이는 소송촉진등에관한특례법 제21조 제2항 에 해당한다고 할 것이므로 논지는 이유있다.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)