(a) The case affirming the decision of the court below that recognized the contractor's liability for an accident falling down on a long-term timberer and falling on a crashed ground due to the heavy fault that the non-airs, which had been engaged in the dismantling of the non-systems at the new construction site of a building, and that the victim's negligence is 40 percent;

B. Whether the income earned by the victim from the remaining labor force after the accident should be deducted from the amount of damages (negative)

C. The case reversing the judgment below which held that the injury was caused by an accident even though there was no symptoms on the part of the injury at the time of the accident, or there was an error of incomplete deliberation or lack of proper reasons.

(a) The case affirming the decision of the court below that recognized the contractor's liability for an accident falling down on a long-term timberer and falling on a crashed ground due to the heavy fault that the non-airs, which had been engaged in the dismantling of the non-systems at the new construction site of a building, and that the victim's negligence is 40 percent;

B. The victim who lost part of his/her labor ability due to an accident is running with the remaining labor force after the accident does not necessarily deduct any income accruing from the accident from the amount of damage suffered.

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found that the injury was caused by an accident, although there was no symptoms on the part of the injury, and there was no evidence on the part of the accident, and there was no evidence on the medical certificate prepared at the time of the accident one year after the accident.

A. Articles 756, 763, and 396 of the Civil Act; Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act; Article 750 of the Civil Act; Articles 183 and 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Sam River Unemployment Corporation

Busan High Court Decision 90Na1045 delivered on August 31, 1990

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant concerning property damage shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff 1, who was employed by the defendant company and engaged in non-public work as a whole by compiling evidences, was killed and wounded on the ground as it was cut off from the 3rd-meter non-development plate at a height of 5 meters above the ground, due to the serious reason that the plaintiff 1, at around 10:00 on May 12, 1987, performed the work of dismantling the non-public structures installed for concrete structure under the direction of Non-party 1, a person in charge of field supervision at the construction site of the factory building constructed in the judgment of the defendant company. The court below recognized the fact that the above fact-finding is just, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, as pointed out in the arguments.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above dancing, which is a person in charge of field supervision of the defendant company, was a very dangerous work for the above sub-scriptive work, and that the plaintiff 1 has not yet been well aware of the non-scriptive work, and thus, the court below neglected the above plaintiff's duty of care to check the state of the non-scriptive structure before commencing the work and to wear one safety belt to give notice of the method and order of the work, thereby preventing the occurrence of the accident, which caused the above plaintiff to be negligent.

In the case of this case, the theory of the lawsuit did not commit negligence, such as that the defendant did not have a duty to use the safety belt from the defendant company when he assembled and installs the strings as in the case of this case. However, according to the records, at least by using the strings that are not solid by the defendant as in the judgment of the court below, the above strings of the above strings of the plaintiff, and it was recognized that the above strings of the above strings of the plaintiff, and therefore, the above strings of the plaintiff was negligence in the fall of the above plaintiff company. Therefore, the court below recognized the liability for damages to the defendant company as the user of the above strings of the above strings of the defendant company, while the court below did not neglect the duty of care to promote the safety of the plaintiff 1 by concentrating attention in consideration of the risk of the above stringing work, it is justified to consider the plaintiff 1's negligence as 40 percent

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Examining the records, it is right and wrong that the court below calculated the lost income of Plaintiff 1 on the premise that the plaintiff 1 was engaged in the non-public service (However, it is clear that the part of the court below's reasoning stated as the above plaintiff's official approval is a clerical error in the non-public service, or that it is a clerical error in the rules of evidence or the incomplete hearing. Therefore,

4. As to the fifth ground for appeal

Upon examining the records, it is justified that the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff 1 operated as the remaining labor force and obtained the income of the decision as compensation, and judged that the damages suffered from the accident of this case shall not be deducted from the damages of this case, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as asserted by the lawsuit.

5. As to the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Plaintiff 1’s ability to work as a non-public figure has been lost by 65 percent remaining after the treatment of Plaintiff 1 was completed due to the injury suffered by the accident in this case, even after the treatment was completed.

In light of the records, it appears that the court below's determination was based on the Busan Hospital's response to the request for physical examination. The above response was made on September 8, 1989 by the plaintiff 1's injury after two years and four months of the accident, and the plaintiff 1's injury was made on the 1st day of the accident, the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st, the 1st half and the 2nd day of the 1st half of the 1st day, and the 1st day of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 1st day of the 1987. The 1st day of the 1st half of the 1987. The 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st half of the 1989. The 2nd day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st half of the 1989. The 2nd day of the 2nd day of the 1st half of the 198th day of the diagnosis.

In the end, the judgment of the court below is just because it did not complete the deliberation or did not properly satisfy the reasons, and thus, it affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, even though the defendant filed an appeal against the whole part of the judgment below against the defendant, the part other than property damage is not subject to the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the appeal on this part shall not be dismissed.

6. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant concerning property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the defendant's appeal concerning the remaining part is dismissed, and the costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)