A. Determination of the duration of life expectancy of a person in need of opening and rule of experience

(b) A case which is considered to be adequate for expenses for nursing an adult female as the wage; and

(a) If it is necessary to provide assistance to a nurse because it is impossible for him/her to conduct an independent pedagogy, and there is an disorder in urgical and urology, as well as that he/she can not change his/her pedagogy in mind, it is difficult to enjoy life-sustaining such as a healthy person unless he/she is anticipated in the future.

B. If it is sufficient that the wife of the victim alone takes charge of the name for a certain period after the accident, and the extent of the name also meets that the name will take over 24 hours on the side of the 24-hour, even if it is necessary to have a little medical knowledge to the opening, it is sufficient to have a little number of adult female members receive the necessary knowledge and transfer it to the opening, so the opening cost is ultimately sufficient to have an adult female's wage.

A. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1079 Delivered on November 23, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Hanyang, Inc., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na3534 delivered on July 5, 1988

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to ground of appeal No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that even if the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff needs one adult nurse care in the future due to the following problems: in the event that the plaintiff's dynasium, the fynasium, the independent fynasium failure, the first Tynasium damage, the first vertesis damage, the complete fynasium damage and the first vertesis damage, and the brynasium and urgical disorder caused by vertemossis damage, the court below held that the lifenasium was not reduced compared to the normal fynasium.

However, if it is not only impossible to conduct an independent urology, but also impossible to change the body with the mind of the body, and thus it is necessary to provide assistance to the nurse, it would be consistent with our rule of experience to think that it would be difficult to enjoy life-sustaining such as a healthy person if he or she is expected to do so if he or she is able to do so in the future.

The court below should have a reasonable statement that the appraisal by the court of the second instance that the degree of 16 years is reduced compared to the plaintiff's life expectancy's healthy normal person, and that the appraisal by the court of the second instance that did not believe and did not shorten the life expectancy, and that the above appraisal by the court of the second instance may enjoy the same life expectancy as the normal person with the present health condition of the plaintiff recognized by the court below, in order to obtain the appraisal result as far as there is a clear point in our rule of experience, the above recognition's health condition is likely to be improved in the future, and unless there is a possibility that the above recognition's health condition will be improved in the future, the above person can enjoy the same name as the normal person, regardless of such health condition. Ultimately, the court below recognized the plaintiff's life expectancy by the court below has violated the rules of evidence

As to ground of appeal No. 2

In calculating the nursing expenses for the plaintiff, the court below held that in the future, the plaintiff needs to open an adult male or female with a little of medical knowledge of at least 16 hours a day a week at the time of urology, urine, bath, bath, milk, salvine, salvine, body change, and movement during the life expectancy, and that the nursing expenses are required to be 13,00 won a day.

However, according to the records, from February 25, 198 after the occurrence of the accident in this case, the plaintiff's name was peeped by the actual situation of the plaintiff, the non-party, and even if it is necessary to do so, it is not necessary to continue to work for 16 hours, and it is sufficient to 16 hours at the time of original adjudication, and 24 hours at the time. Thus, unless there are other special circumstances, it is sufficient to satisfy the opening as one adult female, and it is sufficient that the requirements for a little medical knowledge need to be taken over after the opening, so the opening cost should be sufficient as one adult female's wage (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1079, Nov. 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1079, Nov. 23, 1982); and the court below's error in finding that the plaintiff continued to work for 16 hours in calculating the opening cost, and it is justified in the misapprehension of the appeal by 1300 won.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the defendant on the remaining grounds of appeal is omitted, and the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding property damage is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)