Method of acquiring evidence against the same fact against each other

As a result of appraisal, if special knowledge and experience is required for fact-finding, the judge's use of such special knowledge, experience and experience is merely a judge's use of such knowledge and experience, and the labor disability ratio applied to the calculation of lost earnings is also medical and physical disability ratio, and the victim's age, degree of education, nature of occupation, work experience and technical experience should be determined in accordance with the rule of experience. If there are several appraisal results contrary to the same facts, the judge's recognition of facts is illegal unless it violates the rule of experience or logic.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1641 Decided August 20, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 86Meu451 Decided September 9, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 87Nu522 Decided June 9, 1987 (Dong)

Plaintiff 1 and four others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Taeyang Commercial Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na1699 delivered on November 21, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The result of appraisal is merely a judge's use of the knowledge and experience of a person with special knowledge and experience in fact-finding. The labor disability loss rate applicable to the calculation of lost earnings is also the rate of medical and physical functional disorder, and the victim's age, degree of education, nature of occupation, work experience, and degree of technical experience, etc. should be determined in accordance with the empirical rule. However, if there are several different appraisal results in conflict with the same facts, if a judge recognizes facts based on one of them, it would be lawful unless it violates the empirical rule or logical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2920, Jun. 9, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 86Meu451, Sept. 9, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1641, Aug. 20, 1985).

In light of the records, there is no error in the appraisal method adopted by the court below in this case, and the court below adopted the result of the appraisal and re-examination by the non-party of the first instance appraiser and recognized that the plaintiff 1 lost 49 percent's labor ability as a mid-term business operator, and rejected the remainder of the appraisal result contrary to the above circumstances. This is just and there is no error of law such as the reasoning, reason, contradiction, and violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence among the precedents of the lawsuit, since the judgment of the court below is the same as the above purport, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the above precedents, and the judgment of the 71Da2091 delivered on November 23, 1971 cannot be viewed as a violation of the above precedents, and the judgment of the 72Da1729 delivered on November 28, 1972 is a different proposal from this case

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.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)