(a) Guidelines for determining whether to reduce or exempt liability for damage where the victim has been negligent;

B. Whether the calculation of the comparative negligence ratio constitutes the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court

(c) The case affirming the decision of the court below that found the negligence of the driver of a motorcycle collisioned with the taxi that had been drinking while driving in the opposite direction of the one-way road for the vehicle as 60 percent;

(d) The case affirming the court below's measure which calculated the victim's lost profits engaged in the intermediate wholesale business of clothes, such as mass welfare, based on the earnings of the salesperson, braille, and related workers in the report on the status quo of wages by occupation;

(e) The case affirming the decision of the court below that a person engaged in clothes sales can operate until he reaches 60 years of age;

A. In a damages case where there is negligence on the part of the injured party, whether it should be considered only when determining whether to exempt or the amount of compensation for the damage caused by the tort is to be determined in accordance with the principle of equity by comparing and comparing the severity of negligence on the part of the injured party and all other circumstances.

B. The calculation of the comparative negligence ratio is a matter belonging to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(c) The case affirming the decision of the court below that found the negligence of the driver of a motorcycle collisioned with the taxi that had been drinking while driving in the opposite direction of the one-way road for the vehicle as 60 percent;

(d) The case affirming the court below's measure which calculated the victim's lost profits engaged in the intermediate wholesale business of clothes, such as mass welfare, based on the earnings of the salesperson, braille, and related workers in the report on the status quo of wages by occupation;

(e) The case affirming the decision of the court below that a person engaged in clothes sales can operate until he reaches 60 years of age;

(b)Article 763, Article 396(d)(e) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da14539 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1492). Supreme Court Decision 90Da20077 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1496) 91Da8081 delivered on May 14, 1991 (Gong1991, 1640) (Gong1640 delivered on July 23, 1991)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorneys Lee Young-soo et al.)

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Na2140 delivered on April 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) Whether to exempt the victim from liability for damages due to a tort or to determine the amount of compensation in a damage compensation case is a matter that should be determined in accordance with the principle of equity by comparing and comparing the severity of negligence on the part of the perpetrator and the victim and all other circumstances, and the calculation of the comparative negligence is a matter belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. In light of the record, the court below held that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the number of the taxi drivers belonging to the plaintiff 1 and the defendant company, and that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the number of the taxi drivers belonging to the plaintiff 1 and the defendant company, and that the vehicle traffic of the 40cc bicycle with the engine displacement in the opposite direction of the plaintiff 1 proceeding at a speed of 50 kilometers a speed of speed from the speed of 50 kilometers a speed, and that the above plaintiff 1 had the above plaintiff 1's fault ratio to 60% a speed of the above plaintiff 1's.

(2) In light of the records, the court below recognized that the plaintiff 1 was engaged in the intermediate wholesale business of clothes such as physical welfare from 1965 to the time of the accident in this case, and recognized that the plaintiff 1 was engaged in the intermediate wholesale business of clothes such as physical welfare, etc., based on the import of the sales workers, shop workers, and their employees with ten or more years of experience in the report on the survey of wage status by occupation, and that the above plaintiff's daily profit can be operated until he reaches the age of 60, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or lack of reasons.

(3) The court below's judgment to the same purport is just and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing.

(4) All arguments are without merit, 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)