[1] The probative value of the result of credit evaluation by commission of physical examination

[2] In a case where the prediction of life expectancy is uncertain, the method of calculating the amount of loss, such as lost income and future medical expenses, etc.

[3] In a case where the prediction of life expectancy is uncertain and thus a payment order is issued by mixing a lump-sum and a regular amount, the calculation method of lost income losses

[1] What is the reduction in the amount of post-treatment shall be individually determined from the medical point of view according to the specific contents of post-treatment. The result of post-treatment is subject to medical judgment, and unless there are special circumstances, the appraiser's judgment as to the result of post-treatment shall be respected.

[2] Where the prediction of the name of the victim was uncertain even if the result of the expert appraiser's appraisal, the court shall order the payment of a lump-sum amount, and the subsequent period shall be the order for the payment of damages for the period deemed to be the victim's life in calculating the lost income and the future medical expenses. Thus, it cannot be said that the court reached the order for the payment of the fixed amount under the condition that the victim is alive.

[3] In particular, in order to issue an order for the payment of actual income losses by mixing a lump-sum amount and a fixed amount with a certain period deemed to be uncertain when a life forecast is deemed uncertain, the actual income for the period for which the victim is deemed to continue to exist without fail, shall be deemed a lump sum after deducting intermediate interest. The actual income for the period to the maximum working age after such a period, shall be deemed a lump sum after deducting intermediate interest, from the amount which remains after deducting the living cost, and the damage equivalent to the living cost from the actual income to the maximum working age after such period, shall be ordered to be compensated as the monthly payment on condition of the victim’s survival.

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da26673 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 255) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu26102 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong1991, 51) Supreme Court Decision 94Da31334 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 145Sang, 1454 delivered on August 23, 1996), Supreme Court Decision 96Da21591 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2863), / [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 200Da11317 delivered on July 28, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1937Da394394 delivered on April 39, 194)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Head, Attorneys Seo-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Newdong Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Gyeong-gil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2001Na1390 delivered on September 14, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the forecast of the name of lease and the lump-sum and the lump-sum and the mixed compensation

The method of reducing the maximum working age after death shall be individually determined from a medical point of view according to the specific contents of the postary gift. The result of the physical appraisal entrusted is belonging to a medical judgment, and barring any special circumstance, the appraiser's determination on such result shall be respected (Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu26102 delivered on November 9, 1990; 92Da2673 delivered on November 27, 1992; 94Da3134 delivered on February 28, 1995; 96Da21591 delivered on August 23, 1996; 200Da3164 delivered on September 16, 207; 300Da3174 delivered on September 16, 1996; 30Da315991 delivered on September 26, 197). Thus, the court order the victim to make a lump sum payment for the remaining period after the death of the victim to the extent that it would be 16.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the results of physical examination of the plaintiff's life expectancy, which can be seen through the reasoning of the judgment below, and other expert evidence, such as the result of physical examination of the plaintiff's life expectancy, which is originally 34.17 years at the time of the accident of this case. The plaintiff's life expectancy is expected to be 20 to 30% due to the accident of this case. The plaintiff requires blood dysium or dysium due to chronic renal failure, which is less than 91.3% of the total dysium, 82.5% of the survival rate of 5 years, 76.6% of the total dysium, or 10% of the life rate of 10 years, 9% of the total dysium patient's life rate of 9.7% of the total dysium patient's life rate of 9%, 18.7% of the total dysium patient's life rate of 18.7%

Therefore, as can be seen from the data on the remaining remaining life expectancy of the Plaintiff, even if based on the appraisal result of such expert appraiser, etc., it is deemed difficult to predict the Plaintiff’s life expectancy accurately. Thus, in this case, it is reasonable to order the Plaintiff to make a mixed compensation for daily and lump-sum compensation for actual income at an appropriate time that the Plaintiff can survive clearly, in light of the ideology of social justice and equity. Furthermore, examining the lower judgment in light of all the circumstances in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the lower court ordered the Plaintiff to receive an increased cost of living around August 14, 2002, where approximately one year has passed since the date of the closing of argument in the lower court’s judgment, and it is reasonable to recognize that the Plaintiff could continue to live for about seven years thereafter, as well as that it is within the fact-finding court’s discretionary discretion, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the maximum working age of living expenses, such as the maximum working age within 0 days after the date of final conclusion.

2. As to the future treatment costs

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below ordered compensation for medical expenses for transplant during the future treatment expenses, while the court below ordered compensation for medical expenses for future treatment expenses, on the premise that each non-ururology and chronic part, urology and urology pertaining to the implementation of blood urology and dysology, part of the urology (such as metal urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical urgical

3. As to the plaintiff's negligence

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant's liability should be limited because the plaintiff was negligent in the occurrence of the accident of this case, such as the failure to wear the safety belt even to the plaintiff, etc., on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff predicted or could have predicted abnormal operation such as the non-party's central bed, and that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff did not wear the

Examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are deemed correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of the legal principles as alleged.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)