(a) The case affirming the decision of the court below on the basis of the result of appraisal in recognizing the aftermath disability caused by an injury and the reduction of life expectancy;

(b) Method of claiming the payment of losses incurred on a regular basis in the future;

A. At the time of appraisal, the results of appraisal confirming the contents of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff due to an accident and confirming the contents of the existing disability at the time of appraisal after the elapse of five years and seven months from the date of appraisal are subject to medical judgment, barring any special circumstance, the determination of the appraiser with respect thereto shall be respected, and in the appraisal of the life-long period, additional consideration was given to the clinical experience of the appraiser in the relevant thesis. Therefore, the court below was justified in adopting it as evidence and recognizing the future life-long period.

B. In the case of claiming damages for future losses, whether to claim the payment of the fixed amount, whether to claim the payment of the lump-sum payment can be chosen by the parties, and whether to order the payment of the fixed amount belongs to the discretion of the court.

A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu982 delivered on April 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1061). Supreme Court Decision 68Da92 delivered on March 5, 1968 (Gong1988, 402) decided Nov. 9, 1990 (Gong1991, 51)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Chang-joon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na33430 delivered on July 19, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the average life expectancy of the plaintiff, who was a male student on March 10, 1971, who was born between 13 and 8 years old at the time of the instant accident, was anticipated to be reduced to 11 years due to the aftermath of the injury inflicted by the instant accident, and that the average life expectancy of the plaintiff was anticipated to be reduced to 55.28 years from the time of the instant accident, and that the reduced life expectancy of the plaintiff was until March 2029.

On June 18, 190, more than five years and seven months have passed from the date of the occurrence of the instant accident, the following can be seen. First, with respect to the Plaintiff’s medical history as the appraiser, the appraiser was subject to the instant traffic accident on December 1, 1984, the appraiser explained that he was under medical treatment at a hospital affiliated with the National Medical Center on December 3, 199, after receiving first aid from the National Medical Center, and the appraiser was under medical treatment at a hospital affiliated with the Human Medical Center on December 12.3, 199. Since the appraiser was at the time of appraisal of the Plaintiff’s symptoms and clinical dogs, it appears to have been at the time of the examination that the appraiser was at a 1stmathic condition, to the extent that he did not respond to a simple order, and that it was at the time of 1stral condition, to the extent that the appraiser was at the time of 1stal marcium, and that it was at the time of 1stal marcium, which was at an objective condition.

According to the above appraisal statement, the plaintiff confirmed the contents of injury suffered by the accident in this case at the time of appraisal, and confirmed the contents of the existing disability at the time of appraisal after the elapse of five years and seven months from the time of appraisal. Such determination as to the plaintiff's status at the time of appraisal belongs to medical judgment, and barring any special circumstance, the judgment of the appraiser as to the plaintiff's status at the time of appraisal shall be respected unless there is a special reason. In the appraisal of the life-long period, the court below adopted it as evidence and recognized the period of life-long extension in the future of the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, such as the theory of lawsuit,

2. During the above life expectancy of the Plaintiff, the lower court recognized the fact that the Plaintiff needs to use future medical treatment and auxiliary equipment as stated in its reasoning and, at the same time, the Plaintiff’s age of 20 years, only one adult male, and one adult male, from that time to the age of 20, requires the opening of an adult male, and ordered the Plaintiff to calculate the current price of the accident at the time of the accident after deducting the interim interest on the necessary expenses, and pay it in lump

Whether to seek a lump-sum payment in compensation for damages can be decided voluntarily by the parties, and whether to order the payment of a lump-sum payment belongs to the free discretion of the court.In theory, it is reasonable for the plaintiff to pay the future medical expenses and care expenses to the end of each month or each year during the plaintiff's life period as well as the fair compensation method. However, according to the result of the physical examination of the adoption of the court below, it cannot be determined that the plaintiff is currently in a state of plant human resources, and the decision of the court below ordering the payment of a lump-sum payment at the plaintiff's request is not growing. In addition, the court below was justified to recognize the plaintiff's future medical expenses.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing concerning calculation of damages, such as theory of lawsuit, in the judgment below. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)