(a) The case affirming the court below's measure that held that the degree of negligence of the victim's 20% on the vehicle driven by her driver after drinking together with her friendship;

(b) In cases where the amount of ordinary labor wages exceeds the actual income of a worker who has lost his/her ability to work due to a tort is a large amount, whether the amount of ordinary labor wages shall be calculated on the basis of the ordinary labor wages (affirmative)

C. In the case of the above “B”, the location where the party liable to assert and prove the “special circumstance” (=i.e., the side of the victim)

(d) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the loss of labor ability due to the restriction on exercise of the right leg, based on the result of physical entrustment after two years and two months from the time of the accident, although no symptoms are indicated on the right leg, which was issued six months after the time of accident and the physical appraisal document prepared one year after the date of accident;

A. We affirm the court below's measure that held that the degree of negligence of the victim's 20% is 20% on the vehicle driving after drinking together with his friendship.

B. In a case where the amount of ordinary wages exceeds the amount of wages earned by a person employed in the workplace, the probability that a person employed in the workplace would be engaged in the ordinary labor would have deteriorated. Thus, barring any special circumstance, if the ordinary labor wages at the time of the closing of argument are larger than the actual profit earned at the time of the loss of labor force, barring any special circumstance, the actual income should be calculated based on

C. In the case of the above “B”, the “special circumstance” should not be asserted and proved by the perpetrator.

(d) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which recognized the loss of labor ability due to the restriction on exercise of the right leg, based on the result of physical commission after two years and two months from the time of the accident, where there is no symptoms on the right leg, which was issued six months after the accident and the physical appraisal document prepared one year after the accident.

A. Article 763(b) of the Civil Act. (d) Article 763(Article 393) of the Civil Act; Article 261(d) of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 183 and 193(2) of the same Act

B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Da1899 Decided February 26, 1980 (Gong1980, 12690) decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 368)

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant Choi-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na55464 delivered on September 12, 1991

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

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for the part concerning property damage:

The court below recognized that the plaintiff 20% of the plaintiff's negligence in the occurrence of the accident and the expansion of damage of this case on the ground that the plaintiff diversity of the car driven by the defendant under the condition of driving after drinking together with the defendant as a kind of defendant. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence. The argument is without merit

With respect to the second ground:

In calculating the lost income of a victim who has lost his/her ability to work due to a tort, in principle, the basis of the victim's income at the time of the loss of his/her ability to work shall be as follows: Provided, however, if the increase in the income is objectively clear, the increase in the income should also be taken into account. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, if the wage of a person employed at work exceeds the actual income at the time of the loss of his/her ability to work, it shall be calculated on the basis of his/her choice of the wage (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 79Da899, Feb. 26, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 89Da18723, Dec. 26, 1989; etc.). In such a case, the special circumstance mentioned above should not be asserted and proven by the defendant.

In this case where there is no assertion or proof as to the above special circumstances, the court below is justified in calculating the plaintiff's lost earnings from the plaintiff's work which was employed as an external worker at the time of loss of labor force in accordance with the above legal principles on the basis of the daily wages for rural communities, and there is no illegality of pointing out the theory on the lawsuit. There

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on a comprehensive review of the evidence, recognized the fact that the plaintiff lost 29.5 percent of his work ability as an employee for daily work in rural communities due to the remaining after the symptoms have been shown due to the completion of treatment due to injury, such as a complex and falsium, etc. caused by the accident in this case.

In comparison with the records, the above recognition of the court below seems to have been made by the response of the Kan University Hospital for the request for physical appraisal of the court below, and the above response was made two years and two months after the accident of this case, and the contents of this response showed symptoms of the restriction on the exercise of the right to the plaintiff, and accordingly, the plaintiff lost the labor ability of 29.5 percent due to the duplicate disability of 15 percent due to the limitation on the exercise of the right to the right to the right to the public and 17 percent due to the suspension of the exercise of the exercise of the right to the public.

However, according to the records, according to Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Medical Examination) issued after about six months of the accident at the ○○ Hospital in Gangnam-si, which was hospitalized after the accident, the plaintiff suffered the injury is merely a complex framework of the preferential retirement, and the right-hand balance, and there is no mentioning about the content of the injury suffered by the plaintiff, and even the physical appraisal statement prepared after one year period after the accident was passed by the non-party, who is the appraiser of the first instance court, also stated that the plaintiff suffered injury, such as the pelle, etc., from the injury of the body appraisal statement prepared by the non-party, who is an appraiser of the first instance court, is subject to the limitation of the movement scope of the right-hand slot, and there is no indication about the symptoms of the above right-hand satisfaction. Thus, it is doubtful that the symptoms of the movement restriction of the above right-hand satisfaction are not unrelated to the traffic accident of this case.

In order to accept the written request for physical examination made after two years and two months after the accident even though the original diagnosis or appraisal did not contain any reference to this part of the symptoms, and to recognize that this part of the written request for physical examination was caused by the accident in this case, the court below should accept the above written request for physical examination which was made after two years and two months after the accident, and support this part of the written request for physical examination by the plaintiff, by clarifying the circumstances and reasons why this part of the disability was newly caused, in addition to

It is difficult for the court below to easily recognize that the disability to the above right part is caused by the accident in this case without reaching this point, and it is an illegal act which fails to exhaust all necessary deliberations or fails to satisfy the reasons for the judgment, and it is reasonable to point this out.

With respect to the fourth point:

In light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that included the costs of sexual surgery on the part of the plaintiff, which occurred from an operation on the part of the pelpelle of the accident in the future treatment costs for the plaintiff, and there is no illegality pointing out the theory of the lawsuit. We do not agree with the grounds for appeal.

2. The part concerning consolation money

The defendant does not state any grounds of appeal against the consolation money portion, and this part of the appeal is delivered to the ground of appeal without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, we accept the third point of appeal. The part against the defendant as to property damage among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal as to the dismissed part are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)