손해배상(자)
2015Na53014 Claims for Damages
1. A;
2. B
Han Steel Co., Ltd.
Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Da12243 Decided June 17, 2015
January 15, 2016
January 29, 2016
1. Each appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendant is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
1. Purport of claim
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 4,350,980 won, 42,350,980 won, and each of them shall be paid 5% per annum from May 15, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the application for the purpose of claim and modification of the cause of claim as of May 14, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.
2. Purport of appeal
A. The plaintiffs
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 30,253,214 won, 29,813,214 won, and each of them shall be paid 5% per annum from May 15, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the application for the purpose of claim and modification of the cause of claim as of May 14, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. Defendant
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this Court’s explanation concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of some of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
(O) Part 5 of Part 8 "A No. 22" includes:
“The Plaintiffs agree to exclude the amount of KRW 35 million from the civil damages claim, etc., which should not be considered as reasons for consolation money. However, the fact-finding court may determine the amount of consolation money for emotional distress caused by tort at its discretion by taking into account all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da2507, Aug. 23, 2012). The Plaintiffs’ above assertion is not acceptable.” “2014Da1243, Jan. 1243, 2015” in the column for case number of case in the table for calculation of amount of compensation attached to theO is “2015Na53015.”
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs and the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges of the presiding judge;
Judges Ansan-si
Judge Long-Term