손해배상(의)
The judgment below
Among them, the part against Plaintiff A regarding property damage shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be applied.
1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the fact that Plaintiff A was able to lead a day-to-day daily life on his own without nursing, and the symptoms of marina are limited to the left part, and thus, it was anticipated that the progress will no longer proceed. In so doing, the lower court calculated the income from day-to-day nursing and the expenses for nursing, medicine, and protective outfits by taking into account such circumstances.
Even in light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the calculation of lost income and the care expenses, or by misapprehending the empirical rule, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal
A. As to the third ground of appeal, the Plaintiffs asserted that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the grounds for limitation of liability and the scope of liability.
The ground of appeal is just an error in the fact-finding that belongs to the exclusive authority of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and it cannot be deemed legitimate
B. With respect to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the validity of repayment due to provisional execution is not conclusive, but rather arises under the condition subsequent to the declaration of provisional execution or the cancellation of the judgment on the merits at the appellate court. Thus, even if the amount of provisional execution was paid upon the judgment of the court of first instance based on the judgment of the court of first instance, the court shall not take this into account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6954, Aug. 20, 2009). Nevertheless, the court below held against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiffs received 68,026,170 won from G under the judgment of the court of first instance under the order of seizure and collection with respect to the claims, such as the payment to the Defendant C and D’s third obligor G