[손해배상][집13(2)민,166]
In calculating the amount of damages due to a tort, an error of lack of reason due to incomplete hearing;
For merchants who are 7,8 to 20 persons in direct service and engage in small-scale coal manufacturing and sales business:
The amount of damages caused by a tort is recognized as a hospitalization fee, and his/her intention during the period of hospitalization.
There is no shaking of the hearing on the existence of a merchant's rest in his/her duties, the rest period, and the amount of the lost profits, etc. during his/her period without confirming only the fact that a direct official had continued his/her business, and rejected the hearing on the amount of lost profits, etc. due to the incomplete hearing, there is an error of lack of reason due to the incomplete hearing.
Articles 763, 393, and 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Kim Dong-ho et al.
Seoul High Court Decision 64Na1291 delivered on June 25, 1965, Decision 64Na1291 delivered on July 25, 1965
Of the final appeals, the part concerning the counterclaim is dismissed.
The part concerning principal lawsuit in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court for the purpose of examining the part.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) are examined.
1. First of all, the court below's finding that the part of the counterclaims No. 1 and No. 2 and No. 4 were examined in detail, and found that the original judgment violated the No. 5-1 (No. 10 Evidence No. 12), No. 16 and No. 18-2 (Evidence No. 12) of the original judgment, comprehensively taking account of the contents of No. 15, No. 16 and No. 18, the plaintiff's testimony and evidence No. 1500, Oct. 15, 1961, and found the defendant non-party 4 (the defendant's abbreviation)'s satisfy with each other, and found that the defendant's testimony and evidence No. 4 were not identical to the non-party 1's testimony and evidence No. 5 (the defendant's testimony and evidence No. 4 were not identical to the non-party 6-2's testimony and evidence No. 15000, Nov. 15, 1964).
2. Of the following points 3 and 4, the part concerning miscellaneous expenses, such as transportation expenses, meal expenses, etc., by the plaintiff and nursing staff, were merchants taking account of the part concerning the plaintiff's hospitalization in Hanil Hospital, who operated small scale manufacturing and selling business by direct direction and effort of the plaintiff 7,8 through 20, and by his own direct direction and effort. The fact that the plaintiff was hospitalized in Hanil Hospital to cure the injury caused by violence by the defendants, such as the fact that the amount of damages in the principal lawsuit is recognized, among the original judgment, the amount of damages can be presumed as the whole purport of oral argument and arguments. The plaintiff was unable to carry out the above electrical business during the treatment period, and at least during the above hospitalization period in light of the empirical rule, it was easy for the court below to find out that the plaintiff could not carry out his duty of care for the plaintiff's loss in light of the plaintiff's total amount of damages, and that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for sufficient reasons for non-party 2's non-party -party 1 to the above medical treatment period as well-founded.
Therefore, by unanimous opinion of all participating judges, the part concerning the principal lawsuit against which the part concerning the counterclaim among the final appeal is groundless and dismissed, is reversed, and the judgment of the court below is delivered to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)