(a) Scope of compensation for damage where a victim's aftermath disability overlaps with an injury caused by a spathy or an accident;

(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the rate of loss of labor force was not appraised in consideration of the degree of contribution of the king, since it did not confirm whether the degree of the harm inflicted by the victim was expanded due to competition with the injury caused by the accident, and there was an incomplete hearing or an error in violation of the rules of evidence.

A. In a claim for damages caused by a tort, if the victim's disability is not the only cause of injury caused by an accident, but the victim's injury is concurrently caused by an accident, it shall be concluded that the damage caused by the subsequent disability is attributable to the injury caused by the accident in question only to the injury caused by the accident in question is unfair from the point of view of fair and equitable burden of damages in tort liability. In such a case, it is reasonable to impose only the remaining amount of damage corresponding to the degree of contribution made by the victim to the perpetrator.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the king was appraised in consideration of the degree of the victim's contribution, although it was not appraised in consideration of the degree of the victim's contribution, since it did not confirm whether the degree of the victim's subsequent disability was expanded due to competition with the injury caused by the accident, and the rate of the loss of labor force was not appraised in consideration of the victim's contribution to the accident

Article 763 (Article 393) of the Civil Act; Articles 183 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Meu112 decided Apr. 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 785) (Gong1988, 900) decided Apr. 27, 1988, 90Da17972 decided May 28, 1991 (Gong191, 1741)

[Judgment of the court below]

Kim Jae-Jon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na1195 delivered on July 11, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff lost working ability as urban daily workers [28 + (100-28) x 0.08] of approximately 33.76% of the working ability of the plaintiff as an average male who left 13 years of age as of May 21, 1975 at the time of the accident of 13 years of age as of May 21, 1975, due to injuries such as mination and mination of minshed as a male who suffered from the accident of this case, after the treatment of the accident of this case, there is a physical disability such as the reduction of 8c meters of the right-hand disability and the physical disability of the right-hand minshed as of May 21, 1975. Thus, the court below determined that the plaintiff's evaluation rate of labor loss of the above defendant's physical disability should not be considered in consideration of the above evaluation rate of labor loss of the plaintiff's physical ability.

In a claim for damages arising from the tort, such as this case, if the victim's subsequent disability is not the only cause of injury caused by an accident, but the injury caused by an accident in the branch of the victim is concurrently caused by the injury caused by the accident in question, the conclusion that the damage caused by the subsequent disability is attributable to only the injury caused by the accident in question is unfair from the point of view of fair and equitable burden of damages in tort liability. In such a case, it is reasonable to impose only the remaining amount of damage corresponding to the degree of contribution made by the victim, which is reasonable, on the perpetrator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da1213, Oct. 14, 1980; 90Da17972, May 28, 1991).

However, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2 (the mark and content of abuse), Eul Nos. 2-1 and 2 (the mark and content of off-the-counter science) and the results of physical examination by the court of first instance as to the director of Incheon Culture and Arts University at the court of first instance, based on the fact that the plaintiff is a congenital patient after the horse board Nos. 1, 8 (the mark and content of off-the-counter science) and the fact-finding by the court of first instance, and the fact-finding on the director of Incheon Culture and Arts School at the court of first instance, which is the patient after the astronomical mal chlorithy, and the malthym of the body of the plaintiff's crym of the 6th century, and the symptoms of the 1,000 malm of the above malthy, 3, and the above malthym of the plaintiff's injury.

In addition, according to the results of the physical examination of the above head of the Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slive Slives Slives Slives Slives Slives Slives Slives Slives Slives Slives Slives. Slives of the above two disabilities are found to be less than 8% of the total labor force loss rate of 34% after the appraisal.

Nevertheless, the court below did not confirm whether the Plaintiff’s Madro-Madro-Madro-Madro's Madro-Madro-Madro-Madro-Madro-Madro-Madro-Madro had expanded the degree of harm caused by the accident in this case. Moreover, the court below's finding that the labor force loss rate of the person in the court below was appraised in consideration of the Plaintiff's contribution was not appraised in consideration of the Plaintiff's contribution to the Madro

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)