Whether the degree of contribution of the king was taken into account in the damages claim lawsuit, the distinction between the "ratio of the king's disability" and the "ratio of the king's contribution" and the calculation of the opening expenses.

With regard to a claim for damages, the degree of the loss of labor ability due to the king in the event that the king had already been caused before the accident, that is, the degree of contribution to the occurrence of the king should be distinguished from the degree of contribution to the occurrence of the king in the event that the king had been caused by the combination between the accident and the victim's king, that is, the degree of contribution to the occurrence of the king in the event that the king was caused by the victim's king, and the contribution to the king in calculating the loss of labor ability to calculate the loss of lost income should be taken into account in calculating the rate of contribution to the king in the absence of special circumstances.

Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Hanl, Attorneys Lee In- case et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Ba-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na51067 decided July 6, 2007

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Of the grounds of appeal No. 6, as to the omission of determination as to advance payment of damages

According to the records, after the accident in the first instance court, the defendant had already paid the plaintiff 1 a sum of 4 million won as part of the damage compensation, which should be deducted from the defendant's damages, and the evidence was submitted to the effect that it corresponds to both parties, as well as the plaintiffs also recognized the fact of receiving the above money. However, the court below did not make any decision as to it.

Therefore, the court below erred by omitting the judgment of the defendant on the above argument, and there is a ground for appeal pointing this out.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and 5

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the labor ability loss rate due to the above plaintiff 1's low king dynasium 42% as 58% of permanent disability, and recognized the labor ability loss rate due to the above plaintiff's dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium 5% of permanent disability, and recognized 60.1% of the combined disability rate as 60.1% of the above plaintiff's labor ability loss rate due to the above plaintiff's accident in this case, while the contribution ratio of the above dynasium was not considered in calculating the opening expenses.

B. With respect to a claim for damages, where a king had already been raised before the accident, the degree of loss of labor ability due to the king and the degree of contribution to the occurrence of the king should be distinguished in the case where a king had been made in combination between the accident and the victim's king and the victim's king, and the degree of contribution to the occurrence of the king after the king was made in the case where a king was made in the victim's king. In calculating the rate of loss of labor ability to calculate the loss of lost income, unless there are special circumstances, the king's contribution should be taken into account in calculating the king's contribution (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da7091 delivered on June 11, 199, etc.). In the case where the perpetrator asserts that the king disability claimed by the victim was caused by the king, such assertion constitutes the denial of causation under the Litigation Act, and the victim's existence, i.e., the causal relation between the accident and the injury, or 200 after the 200.

However, according to the records, the defendant asserted in the first instance court that in calculating the labor ability loss rate due to plaintiff 1's second half verteitis, the above plaintiff's king's disability rate should be taken into account in whole, and the degree of contribution to the second king's disability due to the above plaintiff's strong spineitis should also be taken into account. According to the evidence admitted by the court below, the plaintiff 1's disability rate due to the plaintiff 1's strong vertical spineitis 42% can be known, but the above king's disability rate due to the above vertical spineitis was 42%. However, the above king's degree of contribution to the king's ability to pay the king's labor ability cannot be found (only the defendant unilaterally submitted Eul evidence 4 by asserting that it is 60%). In light of these circumstances, the court below seems to have calculated the above king's disability rate due to the above king's voluntary disability and the king's contribution to the king's contribution to the labor ability after the above king.

Therefore, the court below should have considered the labor ability loss rate in addition to the degree of contribution of the king (in case where the above plaintiff's lost income is recognized by statistical income such as original court, the labor ability loss rate shall be calculated by taking into account the degree of contribution of the king, and unless there are special circumstances, the labor ability loss rate shall be calculated by taking into account the degree of contribution of the king in calculating the king, even though the above plaintiff's degree of contribution to the king was not sufficiently examined and the degree of contribution to the king was not taken into account in calculating the king's degree of contribution to the king, and it was obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit. (However, in calculating the rate of contribution to each disability, the labor ability loss rate may be calculated by taking into account the degree of contribution to the king's ability to the king's ability to make it possible to calculate the rate of contribution to the king's ability to make it possible to calculate the rate of contribution to each disability.)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)