The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the court below erred in incomplete hearing or finding facts by hearing the rules of evidence

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law in incomplete deliberation or finding facts by the rules of evidence

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Dong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant Kim Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na3407 delivered on December 11, 1986

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 attorney's second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the injury suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as spin pressure pressure table, the upper upper part of the left-hand ske, the right skes, etc., and recognized that 41 percent out of the plaintiff's labor ability remains due to the above spinal pressure table and spin-off disorder due to the left-hand skes and the left-hand ske skes, etc., even at the time of the conclusion of the argument of the court below, and determined that 41 percent of the plaintiff's labor ability is lost. The court below determined that the above spinal pressure skes were damaged due to the accident of this case, and that the court below determined that the above spinal pressure skes were damaged due to the accident of this case and that the first part of the first part of the court below and the second part of the second part of the second part of the hospital annexed to the Hanyang University and the second part of the second part of the judgment (as of July 28, 1986).

However, the result of the first physical appraisal shows that the plaintiff suffered pressure from EXE pressure at the time of the physical appraisal. According to the fact inquiry inquiry inquiry reply by the head of the above hospital (as of November 4, 1985), whether the plaintiff's pressure pelvise was caused by the accident, and whether the pelvis witness had already been suffering before it is impossible to distinguish the above pelvise test. Meanwhile, according to the second physical appraisal result, the above injury was presumed to have been caused by the special examination by EXE 1 and the above pelvise No. 2 cannot be presumed to have been conducted for 7 months after the above pelvise No. 1 and the above pelvise No. 2 cannot be presumed to have been conducted for the first time after the pelvise No. 3, the above injury was presumed to have been caused by the pelvise No. 632 of the Record No. 632 of the Judgment, and there was no evidence to conclude that the plaintiff's peleume No. 1 was an accident. 2.

Ultimately, the court below's decision is justified as follows: (a) the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or erred in finding facts by keeping the rules of evidence in light of the rules of evidence; and (b) it constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)