If the same appraiser has inconsistent or obscure opinion with each other on the same appraisal matter, the measures of the court to employ the written appraisal as evidence.

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 the appraisal document or disclosing accurate appraisal opinion through the method of examination as a witness, etc., unless otherwise specifically supported by other evidence.

Articles 187, 312, and 313 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na47849 delivered on January 19, 1994

1. Of the judgment below, the part against the Plaintiff regarding lost earnings and each claim for damages for future treatment costs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below adopted the results of physical examination entrusted to the director of the New Village Symnae Hospital annexed to the medical school annexed to Han Generation University at the court below, and recognized that the plaintiff's subsequent disability, which was caused by the instant traffic accident, is a temporary disability for five years from the time of the said accident, and recognized that the continuous period of the plaintiff's loss of labor ability as the plaintiff's taxi driver, as the time of the accident, is five years from the date of the accident, and calculated the loss equivalent to the lost income.

However, according to the above physical commission of the court below, as the present symptoms of the expert witness, there is an opinion to escape from the conical signboard between the 4-A-c and the 5-c, and there is only the opinion to escape from the conical change, and there is no opinion to express an opinion to escape from the conical signboard. Furthermore, in the degree of the labor ability loss rate due to the subsequent disability, the conical escape from the 4-A-5 conical damage in the 5-H and the 5-H are employed as a driver, it is assessed that the labor ability loss rate is 23 percent, and the 5-A-c) conical damage in the 4-H and the 5-year evaluation of the 5-year evaluation of the 5-year evaluation of the 5-year evaluation of the 5-year evaluation of the above 5-year evaluation of the 5-year evaluation of the 5-year evaluation of the Mabrid disability. However, the 5-year evaluation of the above 5-year evaluation of the 5-year evaluation of the injury.

According to the above written evidence statement itself, it is clear that the plaintiff's lag escape certificate, one of the following obstacles of this case, constitutes a temporary disability for five years, and it also includes an appraisal opinion to the effect that it seems that the lag escape certificate belongs to a temporary disability for five years, or that it is a permanent disability, such as other general successor lagal disabilities, without separately examining whether the lag exists or not. As such, in a case where the same appraiser has presented a mutually contradictory or very obscure appraisal opinion with respect to the same appraisal item, the court should take active measures such as ordering the appraiser to supplement the written appraisal report or disclosing the accurate appraisal opinion through examination method as a witness, etc., unless other evidence is supported in order to establish the facts by directly adopting the above written appraisal report as evidence.

Nevertheless, without taking such measures, the court below, without making such a request for the physical examination of this case, easily followed only the appraisal opinion that the escape certificate of a light-contested signboard, which is a subsequent disability of the plaintiff, constitutes a temporary disability for five years and not permanent, and based on this opinion, concluded that the continuous period of the plaintiff's loss of labor ability due to the accident of this case is equivalent to five years. Thus, this cannot be said to be a violation of logical rules. This argument is with merit.

2. In addition, according to the records, the plaintiff's statement from October 26, 1993 at the 9th date for pleading of the court below, it is evident that the plaintiff claims for additional damages equivalent to KRW 4,320,00 of the expenses incurred in receiving physical treatment for the injury caused by the accident of this case for the next six months (see, e.g., section 203 of the records). The court below's judgment dismissed the above part of the claim without entirely stating the reasons for the claim for damages for the above future medical treatment expenses. Accordingly, there is an error of law in the omission of reasons, and therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. However, although the plaintiff filed an appeal against the plaintiff as to the claim for damages of consolation money in the judgment below, it did not state the grounds for objection in the petition of appeal and did not submit the appellate brief within a legitimate period. Thus, the appeal on this part is without merit.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to the claim for damages for lost earnings and future medical expenses shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal by the dismissed part shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)