Requirements for the reduction of the duration of hospitalization, and whether the entire loss of labor ability during the period of legitimate hospitalization should be deemed to have been lost (affirmative)

In general, in cases of receiving hospitalized treatment due to an accident, barring any special circumstance to deem that all or part of the hospitalized treatment is unreasonable, such as where the period of hospitalization is clearly long, in light of the fact that the treatment is not related to the accident in question, or where the treatment is not medically necessary, the entire labor ability should be lost during the period of hospitalization due to the accident, barring any special circumstance to deem that there is an excessive period of hospitalization, such as where the period of hospitalization is obviously regarded as excessive treatment.

Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

Kim Young-tae

National Passenger Transport Business Federation (Attorney Na-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na8406 delivered on August 22, 2003

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding lost income and nursing expenses is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to comparative negligence

The court below recognized the fact that the non-party, while driving the 4-lane of this case on the 4-lane in the new string distance room, the non-party was driving the 4-lane in the new string distance room, he received the plaintiff from the front part of the above stalth of the above stalth of the stalth of the stalth of the stalth of the stalth of the stalth of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalst of the stalth of the stalst of the stalst of the stalth of the stalth

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to comparative negligence.

2. As to the period of loss of full labor ability and the period of nursing

A. In calculating the Plaintiff’s lost income, the lower court determined that the period of hospitalization was excessive in light of the part and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury caused by the instant accident, and that the Plaintiff lost 100% of the Plaintiff’s ability to work only during the six-month period from September 5, 200 after the instant accident to September 5, 200.

However, according to the records, the plaintiff was a male who was born on March 15, 1921 and was 78 years old and 11 months old at the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, and was suffering from injury, such as flusium flusium flusium, flusium flusium flusium, flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium f.

In general, in cases of receiving hospitalized treatment due to an accident, unless there are special circumstances to deem that, in light of the fact that the treatment was not related to the accident in question or that the treatment was conducted under the pre-treatment even though it is not medically required to be hospitalized, or that there is a situation in which the duration of hospitalization is clearly long, and thus, is regarded as excessive treatment, the whole or part of the hospitalized treatment should be deemed to have been lost during the duration of hospitalization due to the accident (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da49521 delivered on June 9, 200), and even after examining the record, there is no special circumstance to deem that the above serious injury and the hospitalization treatment for the plaintiff of the aged who suffered from multiple times of surgery treatment is unreasonable as above.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized that the plaintiff's entire labor ability was lost for six months from September 5, 200 after the accident of this case during the period of hospitalization of the plaintiff who left one year, and did not recognize the period of hospitalization thereafter, which constitutes an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on loss of labor ability during the period of hospitalization, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation, or misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence.

B. The lower court determined that it was reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received nursing for three months during the period of hospitalization in light of the Plaintiff’s injury level and degree of injury in calculating the Plaintiff’s nursing expenses.

According to the records, the plaintiff is found to have paid nursing fees after being employed as nursing workers because it is impossible to move within a hospital during the period of hospitalization from March 9, 2000 to April 10, 200, and from April 24, 200 to September 25, 200.

The court below should have recognized the opening period by examining in detail whether the plaintiff was unable to engage in a daily life during the period of nursing in light of the part, degree, and progress of treatment of the plaintiff's injury. However, the court below committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the necessity of opening or misunderstanding facts due to incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence.

3. As to the claim for consolation money and medical expenses

The plaintiff filed an appeal against the whole part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff, but the appellate brief does not contain any indication in the grounds of appeal as to the part of the claim for consolation money and the part of the claim for medical expenses, and there is no indication in the grounds of appeal as to this part

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding lost earnings and nursing expenses is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)