(a) If the victim of the tort is unemployed, the criteria for calculating the passive damage;

(b) Calculation of medical expenses incurred in the injury caused by traffic accidents;

A. In calculating the negative loss suffered by the victim of tort, the loss of the lost worker’s labor ability should be determined individually by taking into account the victim’s age, health condition or peculiar skills, career, educational background, and the suit of opportunities for labor, etc. If it is difficult to determine even according to the individual calculation criteria, it shall not be based on the abstract calculation method by average wages, etc., but even in such a case, it shall be taken into account as the victim can be a specific factor such as the type of occupation deemed to be future employment. If the pertinent unemployed worker is a temporary separated worker or a unemployed worker, the loss of the lost worker’s labor ability should be determined individually, and the income at the time of transfer shall be a significant reason for taking into account the aforementioned factors.

B. Medical expenses for the injury caused by traffic accident can be claimed only to the extent that there is a proximate causal relation with the tort. Therefore, in determining the reasonableness, the necessity and period of the treatment act in question should be examined as well as the reasonableness of the amount of remuneration for the treatment. To this end, the possibility of emergency high-amount medical expenses should be reasonably determined by excluding the possibility of emergency high-amount medical expenses by taking into account all the circumstances such as the degree of injury, treatment contents, frequency, universal level of medical expenses (in particular, medical insurance fees).

Article 763 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74 delivered on April 27, 1988

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea District Court Decision 201

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na3623 delivered on May 21, 1987

The case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court by destroying the part against the plaintiff as to the loss of lost interests among the original judgment.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in calculating the lost profit after the plaintiff lost the same injury as that of the plaintiff due to the traffic accident in this case, the court below argued that "the plaintiff shall obtain a Class 1 driver's license from February 28, 1983, and work as a truck driver from Jin-il company operated from February 23, 1984 to April 24, 1985, which is 26 days before the above accident, the plaintiff shall be employed as a truck driver, but the plaintiff's lost income should be calculated on the basis of his income as a driver, although there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff was decided to be employed as a truck driver at the time of the above accident, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that "the plaintiff shall have no reason to view the maximum amount of the income of the driver from the accident in this case x 7 months after the date of the accident x 17 months after the completion of hospital treatment x 25 months after the date of the above accident x 90 days after the death (the plaintiff's loss x 260.).

However, when calculating the negative loss suffered by the victim of tort, the loss of work ability by a person without labor should be determined individually in consideration of the victim's age, health condition or peculiar skills, career, educational background, and the suit of the opportunity for labor. If it is difficult to determine even according to the individual calculation criteria, it shall not be done according to the abstract calculation method by average wages, etc., but even if it is possible for the victim to be a specific factor such as the type of work deemed to be employed in the future. If the person without labor is a temporary or unemployed person, the loss of work ability by a person without labor should be determined individually.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the above legal principles to calculate the lost profit on the basis of the income of daily workers in urban areas solely on the ground that the plaintiff who has a license for one-class driving of a common motor vehicle that can drive a commercial motor vehicle has not been recognized as having been determined to be employed as a driver at the time of the accident, and it is therefore justified to criticize this point by falling under the grounds for reversal of Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s attorney and the grounds of supplementary appeal related thereto

(1) The judgment of facts recognized by the court below in order to affirm the defendant's cause of liability for the traffic accident of this case is justified and there is no error of law, such as the theory of lawsuit.

(2) The amount of the compensation for the injury caused by a traffic accident can be claimed only to the extent that there is a substantial relation between the tort and the tort. Thus, in determining the reasonableness of the compensation for the treatment, the reasonableness of the treatment should be examined along with the necessity and the period of the treatment in question. To do so, the scope of the compensation should be reasonably determined by reasonably excluding the possibility of an emergency high-amount medical expenses by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the degree of injury, the content and frequency of treatment, the universal level of medical expenses (in particular, medical insurance fees) in the society (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74 delivered on April 27, 198).

However, even if considering the source of the lawsuit, the foregoing shall not be deemed as lacking reasonableness, even if the Plaintiff’s artificial general drugs inserted in the place of treatment for the treatment of the aftermatha of the injury caused by the instant traffic accident, such as artificial general drugs inserted in the place of treatment, artificial reciting, and physical therapy.

The reason is that it is not possible to permit the human body, even though the effect of the above alcohol cannot be expected to be successful by 100% in light of the level of modern medical science, even though it is impossible to expect that the effect of the above alcohol cannot be expected to be successful by 100%.

In addition, the legal theory on this point cannot be accepted since the materials that can clearly support the above fact that the number of medical treatment recognized by the court below is too high cannot be found in the records, and the legal theory on this point cannot be accepted, and the precedent of the legal theory is not appropriate in this case.

In the end, all arguments are without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s appeal is with merit, and it is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion by reversing the part of the original judgment as to lost profit damage among the original judgment. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Lee Byung-hee (Presiding Justice)