[1] In a case where the victim's disability caused by a traffic accident conflicts with the victim's king evidence, the scope of compensation for damage

[2] In a case where a spawn and a traffic accident are concurrently caused by a spawn and a traffic accident, whether the spawn's contribution to the spawn's operation should be taken into account in calculating the spawn's operation (affirmative)

[1] In a case where the king symptoms of the victim of a traffic accident aggravated in competition with the accident, thereby contributing to the occurrence of a specific injury to the victim, the prolongedization of the treatment period, and the expansion of the subsequent disability after the completion of treatment, it is reasonable to bear the corresponding amount of compensation out of the total damages of the victim, depending on the degree recognized as having contributed to the occurrence of the result of the whole injury including the specific injury.

[2] In a case where there is a spawnosis and a traffic accident, which is a weak state of injury due to the spawnosis and a traffic accident, the degree of contribution to the spawnosis should be taken into account in calculating the spawnosis.

[1] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Da74 delivered on April 27, 1988 (Gong1988, 900) Supreme Court Decision 94Da59677 delivered on September 10, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2992) Supreme Court Decision 96Da24668 delivered on May 15, 199 (Gong198Sang, 1617) (Gong1999Sang, 1135)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Police Officer (Attorney Lee Ho-ro et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 97Na18928 delivered on December 29, 1998

All appeals against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 are dismissed. The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendant out of the nursing costs against Plaintiffs 1 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division. The remaining appeals by the Defendant are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the rejection of the appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. We examine the appeal filed against Plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Since an appeal is sought to revoke or change a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, the appeal against the original judgment in favor of him/her shall not be permitted as there is no benefit of appeal. According to the records, the defendant appealed the judgment of the first instance which rendered a judgment of winning a part of the above plaintiffs, without filing an appeal, and it is clear that the court below dismissed all the appeals of the above plaintiffs. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant against the above plaintiffs in relation to the above plaintiffs is unlawful as it is without benefit of appeal and it is obvious that the defects cannot be corrected. Thus, the appeal filed by the above plaintiffs against the above plaintiffs cannot be dismissed.

2. We examine the appeal against the plaintiff 1.

A. On the first and second grounds for appeal

According to the results of the judgment of the court below and the results of fact-finding with respect to each physical examination of the Seoul National University Head of the first instance court and the Seoul National University Head of the first instance court, according to the results of the physical examination commission with respect to the head of the Goro Hospital affiliated with the Korea National University University, the court below's judgment is justified in finding that there was a causal relationship between the accident in this case and the accident in this case and the injury of the plaintiff 1, since the plaintiff 1 suffered from the harm to the second half half-halfer due to the Machine Mali-gun in spine in spine inebrate due to the accident in this case or the damage to the father's Mali gun. Thus, the court below did not err

In addition, in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the plaintiff 1 needs medical expenses and the purchase cost of the auxiliary equipment as stated in its decision, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of compensation for damages or in the incomplete hearing.

B. On the third ground for appeal

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that in the determination on the calculation of the lost income of the above plaintiff 1, it was reasonable to determine the ratio of the above plaintiff's contribution to the above disability to 25%, and that the accident of this case was caused by the shock of the driver's seat of the above plaintiff while the plaintiff 1 died at a low speed of about 10 km, and that the degree of shock was not excessive. The above plaintiff was on board the head of the above plaintiff at that time, and that the above plaintiff was gradually occurring in the course of a series of treatment after the above accident, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above plaintiff's contribution to the above disability was reasonable, and that there was no need to establish the contribution ratio of the above plaintiff's contribution to the plaintiff's contribution to the above disability. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there was no contribution ratio as to the plaintiff's contribution ratio as to the plaintiff's contribution.

(2) In a case where the king symptoms of the victim of a traffic accident aggravated in conjunction with the accident, thereby contributing to the occurrence of a specific injury to the victim as a result of the prolongedization of the treatment period, or the expansion of the subsequent disability after the completion of treatment, it is reasonable from the perspective of fairness in the burden of damage to bear the amount of compensation corresponding to the victim's total damages, depending on the degree deemed that the king contributed to the occurrence of the result of the whole injury including the specific injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da59677, Sept. 10, 1996; 87Meu74, Apr. 27, 1988).

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that determined that Plaintiff 1 was in a weak condition due to the above kings, and that such a situation exists in conjunction with the traffic accident in this case and caused the present disability of the second half of the second half of the second half of the second half of the year. Thus, in calculating the opening expenses, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the degree of contribution of the kings, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the court below's rejection of the above assertion is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the necessity and degree of contribution of the kings, even though the contribution of the kings should be considered in consideration of the above contribution ratio.

3. Therefore, all appeals against plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 4 shall be dismissed. The part of the judgment below against the defendant among the part of the nursing expenses against plaintiffs 1 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of Seoul District Court. The defendant's remaining grounds for appeal are without merit, and the costs of appeal against the rejection of appeal shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)