(a) Methods for calculating nursing expenses;

(b) Methods for calculating lost earnings;

A. In a case where there is a need for the assistance of a nursingman due to the freedom of physical injury due to an accident, the opening costs should be calculated on the basis of the total daily wage unless there are special circumstances, and there is a reasonable ground to be differently interpreted on the ground that the victim is entitled to assistance from his/her family or person in the surrounding area. Therefore, the court below committed a violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete hearing to determine the amount of damages calculated on the basis of 1/3 of the total daily wage of the victim, without supporting any evidence.

B. In a case where a victim injured by a tort of another person was engaged in a certain occupation at the time of the accident, and was unable to engage in such occupation any longer due to such physical disability, the lost profit can be calculated by deducting future income from previous occupation income, which is expected to be obtained by engaging in a long-term occupation with remaining physical function from previous occupation income, and also can be calculated by multiplying the victim's labor disability rate by the expected rate of the victim's labor disability. In addition, in a case where expected income is deducted by the method of deducting future income, it is necessary to determine that the forecast of future income is based on reasonable and objectivity, and even in the case of applying the labor disability rate, the labor disability rate should be excluded by the victim's age, level of education, nature and skill of the previous occupation, nature and skill of the previous occupation, the degree of skill and intelligence, the possibility of occupational ability and ability to work at a similar occupation or occupation, and all other social and economic conditions, which are determined by the judge in accordance with the empirical rule.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1316 Decided April 10, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Meu538 Decided March 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu331 Decided March 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2923 Decided July 21, 1987 (Dong)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Cho Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1542 delivered on December 11, 1986

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

(a) On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the amount of the plaintiff's nursing expense on the basis of the amount of 4,400 won of urban female's daily wage around September 1984 in light of the following facts: (a) the plaintiff, when wheel chairs in his daily life in the aftermath of the injury caused by the accident of this case, and when using the toilet, it requires another person's opening; (b) the opening expenses separately calculated damages for the disability of the plaintiff's labor activity; (c) the opening expenses are possible with the help of his family members or the surrounding persons; and (d) the plaintiff's family relation, etc., on the premise that it is reasonable to determine the amount of the plaintiff's nursing expense as the amount of 1/3 of the urban female's daily wage around 1984.

The court below's decision that recognized the plaintiff's opening as sufficient if there is a woman engaged in urban daily work and rejected part of the result of the physical appraisal commission that seems to be contrary to the recognition, is justified, and there is no reason to bring a lawsuit as to this part. Meanwhile, in the case where the plaintiff needs to receive the assistance of an openingr due to the freedom of the body like the plaintiff in this case, it is reasonable to calculate the openingr's expenses based on the total daily wage unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1316, Apr. 10, 1984), and there is a reasonable ground to interpret otherwise on the grounds that the plaintiff can receive assistance from his family or surrounding person like the original judgment. Thus, the court below's calculation of the plaintiff's openingr's non-life damages based on three minutes of urban leisure without supporting any other evidence constitutes a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Litigation, etc., which points out the violation of Article 12 (2) of the Act.

(b) On the second ground for appeal:

In a case where a victim injured by a tort of another person was engaged in a certain occupation at the time of the accident, and was unable to engage in such occupation any longer due to such physical disability, the lost profit can be calculated by deducting future income which is expected to be obtained by engaging in another occupation with remaining physical function from previous occupation income, and can be calculated by multiplying the victim's previous occupation's income by the rate of loss of labor ability. In addition, in a case where expected income is deducted by the method of deducting future income, it is necessary to determine that the forecast of future income is based on reasonable and objectivity, and even in the case of applying the rate of loss of labor ability, the rate of loss of labor ability does not merely have physical disability but rather has the victim's age, degree of education, nature and skill of the previous occupation, the degree of occupational experience and skill of the previous occupation, the probability of occupational ability and skill of another occupation, and the probability of such occupational ability and economic condition of another occupation, and all other factors, it is reasonable and objective that the rate of loss of labor ability should be determined in accordance with the rule of experience.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff was presumed to have lost 70 percent of his capacity to work as an electrical engineer and an urban employee due to the accident in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's amount of 119,000 won per month from the monthly salary of 230,962 won to the retirement age of an electrical engineer of an international commercial factory in the non-party 170,000,000 won per month from the above retirement age to the end of 55 years from the above retirement age, and that the plaintiff suffered losses from each income of 119,000 won per month from the above retirement rate of 170,000 won per month from the above retirement age to the end of 55 years of age. Thus, the court below's above decision was based on the opinion of the above member. Further, since the plaintiff's salary after the accident in this case increased to 261,070 won per month, it rejected the plaintiff's assertion that it should be calculated based on the above income without merit.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified in light of the records, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the title such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete hearing, or violation of the rules of evidence, and therefore there is no ground for appeal.

B. As to the remainder of the Defendant’s appeal, the dismissal cannot be dismissed pursuant to Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that there are no statements in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)