(1) The counterclaim defendant shall pay to the counterclaim 27,779,239 won and 24,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from November 21, 2004 to November 4, 2008; 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; 3,779,239 won per annum from November 21, 2004 to October 28, 2009 to the day of full payment; and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

(2) The counterclaim defendant, including the plaintiff's claim filed by the plaintiff succeeding to the counterclaim extended in this court, pays to the plaintiff succeeding to the counterclaim the amount of KRW 1,479,846 and KRW 677,313 among them, from October 207, from May 28, 2008, for KRW 270,301, from October 8, 2008, for KRW 162,087, from October 18, 2009, for KRW 162,087, from October 28, 2009, for KRW 5% per annum from October 28, 2009, and for KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

(3) The remainder of the counterclaim and the remainder of the counterclaim’s succeeding intervenor are all dismissed.

2. The appeal filed by the Counterclaim Plaintiff is dismissed.

3. 3/4 of the total litigation cost between the counterclaim and the counterclaim Defendant is borne by the counterclaim Defendant, and the remainder is borne by the counterclaim Defendant. 3/4 of the total litigation cost between the counterclaim obligee and the counterclaim Defendant is borne by the counterclaim obligee, and the remainder is borne by the counterclaim Defendant.

4. The provisional execution under paragraphs (1) and (2) may be effected;

Counterclaim: The judgment that the counterclaim Defendant shall pay to the counterclaim 344,249,632 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from November 21, 2004 to the judgment of the first instance court, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

Succession Intervention: The judgment that the counterclaim Defendant shall pay the amount of KRW 14,798,460 from October 207 to the 14,798,460 and the amount of KRW 6,773,130 from October 207, 2008, KRW 3,703,010 from May 28, 2008, KRW 2,701, and KRW 450 from October 8, 2008, KRW 1,620,870 from July 18, 2009 to the date of full payment (this court expanded the purport of the claim by the succeeding intervenor).

Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the counterclaim is revoked. The judgment of the court of first instance that the counterclaim Defendant shall pay to the counterclaim 296,142,168 won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from November 21, 2004 to November 21, 2004 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Purport of Incidental Appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance that the part against the counterclaim defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and that all the claims (including the expanded part) of the counterclaim and the successor intervenor are dismissed.

A. Case summary

The main lawsuit of this case asserted that the counterclaim Defendant, the insurer of the vehicle causing the traffic accident, suffered injury to the counterclaim, and received hospitalized treatment by the victim as a traffic accident, did not have causation with the traffic accident and that there was no insurance claim payment obligation. The counterclaim of this case is a matter of seeking direct damages based on Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act, asserting that the counterclaim Defendant had causation between long-term treatment due to the traffic accident and the occurrence of the Lessee’s cerebrovascular. The succeeding intervenor succeeded to the counterclaim Defendant on the basis of Article 114(1) of the National Pension Act by subrogation of the Counterclaim Plaintiff with respect to the disability pension portion paid to the Lessee.

The judgment of the first instance is dismissed by the counter-defendant's principal claim, and the part of the counter-claim claim and the part of the succeeding intervenor's claim against the counter-claim were accepted. The plaintiff appealed against the part against the counter-claim (the intervention under Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act takes place in a lawsuit involving participation under Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act and the effect of the first instance trial on all parties by an appeal of the plaintiff, the defendant, and the intervenor. In a lawsuit between the three parties, where only one of the other parties has filed an appeal against the other party, the appeal shall take effect on the remaining party pursuant to Article 67 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis. The appeal shall take effect on the remaining party pursuant to Article 81 and Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Act, since Article 62 (2) of the same Act applies mutatis mutandis to this case, the plaintiff's counterclaim's counterclaim's counterclaim's claim against the plaintiff becomes effective for the succeeding plaintiff in the first instance court. Meanwhile, the appellate court extended the plaintiff's claim against the succeeding plaintiff and the succeeding plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff.

B. Presumed factual basis

[Evidence A1], A2, A4, A1-1, B-2, B-2, A7-1, B-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(1) Around November 21, 2004, Nonparty 1: (a) had stopped in the three-lane prior to the fixed side of the Gwangju High School for the New Mine-dong of Gwangju, Gwangju, Gwangju, on November 21, 2004; (b) had the vehicle (vehicle registration number omitted); and (c) had the vehicle stopped in front of the fixed side of the Gwangju High School for the purpose of changing the two-lane to the two-lane vehicle, due to the fact that Nonparty 1 did not well see the same attitude of the vehicle in front of the driver’s seat of the vehicle; and (d) had the Lessee in front of the driving seat of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the other vehicle in front of the other vehicle in front of the other vehicle in front of the other vehicle in front of the two-lane vehicle in front of the two-lane vehicle in front of it, thereby causing injury to the Lessee, such as mination of the two-lane road in

(2) The Lessee was hospitalized in ○○ Hospital on the day of the accident, and received procedures, such as blood static surgery (the operation to fit the upper part of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body.

(3) On February 14, 2006, 15:30 on 15:30 on 14, 2006, the Lessee was undergoing an emergency surgery and hospitalized treatment at the ○○ Hospital with the Gu soil, and with the cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Z.

(4) The counterclaim Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a personal automobile comprehensive insurance contract (one person, two person, and the substitute) with Nonparty 1 as a named insured person and with respect to a household automobile from January 2, 2004 to January 2, 2005 with respect to the insurance period.

2. As to the claim of the Counterclaim Plaintiff

(a) Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above premise facts, the counterclaim defendant is liable to compensate all damages suffered by the counterclaim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act as the insurer of the household-related vehicle.

(2) Whether there exists a causal relationship between the traffic accident of a sea-going vehicle and the cerebral blood of the Lessee

[Dissenting Plaintiff’s Claim]

In light of the fact that an accident occurred between November 21, 2004 and February 10, 2006, the day on which the accident occurred, the Lessee was performed six times through a general anesthesia, and that there was a proximate causal relation between cerebral blood and the traffic accident in light of the fact that cerebral blood was generated on February 14, 2006, four days after the last operation, and that there was a proximate causal relation between cerebral blood and the traffic accident. Even if the Lessee’s negligence on the part of the doctor who provided treatment for cerebral blood was concurrent, this is the case where the symptoms of the victim of the traffic accident worsen or the damage was expanded due to new symptoms due to the doctor’s negligence, so there is a proximate causal relation between the traffic accident and cerebral blood

【Counterclaim Defendant’s Counterclaim】

Since there is no proximate causal relationship between the damage caused by cerebral blood and the traffic accident, the counterclaim defendant asserts that he is liable for damages only to the extent of the damage caused by the traffic accident.

[Judgment]

According to the above evidence, even if the injury caused by a traffic accident cannot be deemed the direct and only cause of the Lessee’s cerebrovascular occurrence, it appears that the Lessee caused cerebral cerebral ties to the Lessee by performing various factors, such as stress or pain, etc., which occurred during treatment over a long-term period of time due to the traffic accident, together with other diseases or physical characteristics of the Lessee. The Lessee caused multiple operations due to a traffic accident, which occurred several times in the form of a general anesthesia, and cerebral cerebral ties occurred on February 10, 206. Thus, there is a proximate causal relation between traffic accident and the injury of the Lessee caused by cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebr.

(3) Limitation of liability

(A) Reduction of kings (the physical factors of the victim)

However, in a case where it is recognized that the injured party's physical or mental factor has contributed to the expansion of damage caused by a harmful act against his body, the court may apply the comparative provisions of Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act to determine the amount of compensation for the damage in order to fairly bear the burden of damages, and take such circumstances into account as the injured party who has contributed to the expansion of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da17972, May 28, 1991; 91Da2977, Aug. 27, 1991; 91Da2977, Aug. 27, 1991). In a case where it is not appropriate to determine the amount of compensation for the damage as a ground for reduction of the liability for damage by offsetting the original negligence, it is reasonable to deem that

According to the evidence mentioned above and the result of physical examination of the head of the Jeonnam University Hospital, it is reasonable to view that the degree of contribution of the Counterclaim Defendant to the Counterclaim to the damage suffered by the Lessee due to cerebralcular is to the extent of 90%, in light of the following: (a) the injury was caused by a traffic accident; and (b) the degree of contribution of the cerebral factors of the Counterclaim Defendant, which can be seen as a king evidence to the damage caused by cerebralcular, in general, to the extent that the degree of contribution of the cerebral factors of the Counterclaim Defendant, which can be seen as a king evidence to the damage caused by cerebralcular, is not attributable to cerebralcular, and the degree of contribution of the cerebral factors to the cerebral factors of the Counterclaim Defendant, in light of the situation where the cerebral factors of the Counterclaim Defendant suffered injury

(B) Negligence offsetting;

On the other hand, according to the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff was negligent in driving the Oral Ba while neglecting his duty on the front time without a license, which caused the traffic accident. Such negligence also led to the occurrence and expansion of the damages in this case. However, since it does not reach the extent to exempt the defendant from the liability for damages in this case, it shall be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the counter defendant. However, in light of all circumstances such as the occurrence of the traffic accident and the occurrence of the traffic accident, it is reasonable to 30% of the fault ratio of the counter-party.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) Actual income

(A) Facts of recognition

[Evidence] 5-1 and 2, Eul 28-1 and 2, Eul 29-1 and 2, Eul 30-1 and 2, non-party 3, 2, and the president of the Jeonnam University Hospital, as a result of the commission of physical appraisal and the purport of the whole pleadings

1) Personal information

Gender: Date of birth of male: omitted.

Age at the time of an accident: Name of lease remaining between 58 and 4 years of age: July 1 ( November 21, 201);

(ii) occupation;

[Dissenting Plaintiff’s Claim]

The Lessee asserts that the monthly average income should be based on the calculation of lost income as he/she has engaged in the manufacturing industry such as feed cutting machines for not less than 17 years at the time of the traffic accident.

【Counterclaim Defendant’s Counterclaim】

The counter-party defendant asserted that the basic statistical survey report on the wage structure is prepared by surveying the wages of workers employed in the sample company among at least five full-time workers, and thus cannot be used as data to estimate individual business income, and that the income of the counter-party plaintiff should be calculated on the basis of the daily wage of the urban average worker until he/she reaches the age of 60.

[Judgment]

A) According to evidence (A) (A) 4, B-25-1, B-25-2, B-27, and Nonparty 3 and 2, the following facts may be recognized.

① On March 31, 1986, the Lessee registered the business under the name of Nonparty 2, who is the wife, in the name of Nonparty 2, from the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu (Land Number 1 omitted), and operated the repair business of general machinery and equipment, and closed the business on June 30, 1992.

② Around June 1992, the Lessee moved its place of business into the Southern-gu Seoul metropolitan area and operated the feed cutting machine manufacturing business from that time to April 1997 (the Lessee or Nonparty 2 did not register the business under this period).

③ On April 20, 197, Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 3 operated the manufacturing business of agricultural machinery and appliances ( feed cutting machines) in the name of the Lessee in the name of the Lessee in the name of the Lessee on April 20, 1997. The business was closed on June 7, 2002. At the time, the size of the place of business was 10-200 square meters, and there was no strawing employee even though there was no strawing employee.

④ From June 20, 2002 to the time of traffic accident, the Counterclaim Plaintiff registered the business with the trade name of “Seong machine” in the name of Nonparty 2, who is the wife in the name of Nonparty 2, from the year-dong (number 3 omitted) in Gwangju Northern-gu, and operated the manufacturing business of feed cutting machines.

⑤ The Lessee was engaged in the manufacturing and maintenance business of agricultural machinery for a period of not more than 20 years and employed 2-3 employees per day.

B) In principle, the actual income of a person operating a personal business shall be calculated based on the ratio of the profit to the portion of the profit derived from the personal contribution of the corporate owner, which is part of the income. However, in the absence of objective data, it may be calculated based on the amount equivalent to the remuneration, i.e., the amount equivalent to the remuneration where a person with the same academic background, career, management ability, etc. as the victim is employed, taking into account the size of the business entity, type of management, the number of employees, management performance, etc., and based on the reasonable and probable method, the amount of loss of future income can be calculated (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da1439 delivered on February 23,

In this case, the Lessee had operated mechanical manufacturing business, such as feed cutting machines, etc. for more than 12 years from June 1992 at the time of the traffic accident, but the revenue mainly depends on the labor of the business owner, and the capital income, such as the income from which a large number of employees are employed, was insufficient. Therefore, in light of the career, the scale of the business and the type of management, etc., it is reasonable to calculate the lost income of the Lessee as the substitute employment expense by the basic statistical survey report on the wage structure as the worker's estimated statistical income with the same career as the Lessee employed in the same occupation.

(3) Import level and income status

The average monthly income of those engaged in the installation and maintenance of agricultural machinery with ten or more years of experience shall be as follows:

(a) year 2004: 3,073,462 won (=2,184,549 +88,913 (=10,66,961/12)) ;

(b) year 2005: 3,274,784 won (=2,289,635 +985,149 ( =1,821, 797/12)) ;

(c) year 2006: 3,608,244 won (=2,535,122 +1,073,122 ( =12,87,473/12)) ;

4) Maximum working age: By the day on which he/she reaches 60 years of age ( July 7, 2006)

(v)the ratio of loss of occupational ability and labor disability;

A) The residual disability and the loss rate of labor ability by disability;

① In a case where it is impossible to move freely due to mixed water and people cannot be identified: 100% of the loss of labor ability due to the degree of contribution of traffic accidents, excluding 90% of the contribution of king as a result of cerebral blood, is 10% of the loss of labor ability.

(2) Slateral exercise failure: 15% of the loss of labor ability, which is Mabrid Ⅱ-2 (Vocational coefficient 6).

(3) An interference with the official exercise of building of satisfaction table: 23% of the loss of labor capacity as Mabrote table Ⅱ-2-a (vocational coefficient 6) and 23% of the loss of labor capacity.

(4) Construction of pipes between sub-speds of 5 resin: Mabrote 1-C-1 (Vocational coefficient 6) with a labor capacity loss rate of 6%

(5) Complex disability rate: 44.62%

B) The rate of loss of labor ability and remaining disability by period;

(1) Until February 13, 2006, the period of hospitalization due to a traffic accident: 100%.

② From the following day to July 7, 2006, the maximum working age: 44.62%

(B) Based on the facts recognized as above and the facts assessed by the court, the total amount of KRW 51,586,872 is calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month from the total appraised value of the lost labor ability during one year and seven months (=19 months) from November 21, 2004, the maximum working age of which was the maximum working age, from July 7, 2006, based on the traffic accident occurred by the Plaintiff based on the matters assessed by the court below (However, the amount less than the original and the last month shall be discarded, and the amount below the middle month for the convenience of calculation shall be included in the period in which the actual income is less or the ratio of loss of labor capacity is smaller).

1) For two months from November 21, 2004 to January 20, 205, the date of accident

3,073,462 won ¡¿ 100% ¡¿ 1.985 won = 6,108,505 won

2) For 12 months from the next day to January 20, 2006

3,274,784 won 】 100% 】 (13.579-1.9875) = 37,960,641 won

3) For five months from July 7, 2006, the maximum working age from the following day:

3,608,244 won ¡¿ 44.62% 】 (18.2487-13.5793) = 7,517,726 won

4) Total amount: 51,586,872 won (=6,108,505 + 37,960,641 + 7,517,726)

(2) Expenses for treatment;

(A)B YENE - 1/2, Eul 10-1 to 8, Eul 11-1 to 9, Eul 12-4 to 7, Eul 17, Eul 18-1, 2, 3 and 5, Eul 20, Eul 21-1 to 23, Eul 23-1 to 5, and Eul 32

(b) Amount: 5,796,586 won [142,640 + 5,653,946 (=56,539,460 + Contribution of traffic accident 10%)

A person shall be appointed.

(3) The cost of future treatment

[Dissenting Plaintiff’s Claim]

From April 11, 2008 to September 6, 2009, the Counterclaim Plaintiff spent the average of KRW 987,048 per month for 17 months from April 11, 2008, and received hospital treatment until the end of life expectancy in the future. As such, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 19,784,093 for hospital treatment costs anticipated to be spent from September 7, 2009 to November 21, 201, the expiration of life expectancy (the Lessee sought rehabilitation treatment costs, drug treatment and regular inspection costs based on the result of physical appraisal entrustment, and the Lessee changed its assertion that the Lessee would seek future hospital treatment costs based on the monthly average of the medical expenses already paid, but it appears that the initial assertion was included in the changed assertion).

[Judgment]

(A) The results of physical appraisal commission

(b) Amount: 307,519 won per month [2,715,600 + Regular Inspection Expenses (442,624+532,00)];

/12 months, rehabilitation treatment costs were included in the pre-determined treatment costs, without any evidence to acknowledge that the Lessee was actually receiving rehabilitation treatment by April 1, 2009, which requires rehabilitation treatment.

(C) Period: On October 21, 2009, the first time after the closing of argument in this Court, the future treatment costs will be deemed to have been paid, and on November 21, 201, the date of completion of the remaining life expectancy 26 times.

(d) Contribution to a traffic accident: 10%;

(e) Calculation: 616,381 won [ =307,519】 (71.896-519) x 10%)

(4) Nursing expenses, sking and in the future

[Dissenting Plaintiff’s Claim]

The Lessee may seek for the payment of KRW 109,59,508, by asserting that one person, a professional nurse, was required for one month after the operation of the framework due to a traffic accident, and that one person, a non-professional nurse, is in a mixed state due to cerebral blood, and that one person, a non-professional nurse, needs to be opened.

[Judgment]

(A) Mexat Evidence 24-1, 24-2, the result of physical appraisal entrustment, non-party 2

(B) Necessity of opening: 24 hours from November 14, 2006, nine months after the date of the outbreak of cerebral blood, to November 21, 201 at the end of the life expectancy, one non-specialized nursing unit, 1, 24 hours (inasmuch as the Lessee was hospitalized in a middle-patient and nine months from the date of the occurrence of an traffic accident, she received assistance from a specialized nurse for the purpose of 1 month from the date of the occurrence of the traffic accident, and the date of the outbreak of cerebral blood, she cannot separately recognize the nursing costs included in the pre-existing treatment costs).

(C) the daily wage rate for urban daily workers (ordinary workers);

1) 56,822 won in the second half of 2006

2) the first half of 2007 57,820 won

3) 58,883 won in the second half of 2007

4) 60,547 won for the first half of 2008

5) 63,530 won in the second half of 2008

(d) Contribution to a traffic accident: 10%;

(e)Calculation;

1) For two months from November 21, 2006 to January 20, 2007

56,822 won ¡¿ 10% ¡¿ 365/12 ¡¿ 24.6369-22.8290) =312,464 won.

2) For six months from the following day to July 20, 2007:

57,820 won 】 10% 】 365/12 】 (29.904-24.6369) = 939,756 won

3) For six months from the day following that date until January 20, 2008

58,883 won ¡¿ 10% ¡¿ 365/12 】 35.2074-29.804) = 936,166 won

4) For six months from the day following that date until July 20, 2008

60,547 won 】 10% 】 365/12 】 (40.3231-35.2074) = 942,122 won

5) For 40 months from the next day to November 20, 2011

63,530 won ¡¿ 10% 】 365/12 】 71.8956-40.3231) = 6,100,975 won

6) Total amount: 9,231,483 won (=312,464 +939,756 +936 +942,942, 962 +126,10,975)

(5) Fruits offsetting

(a) The ratio of negligence: 30%;

(b) Property damage after offsetting negligence: 47,061,925 won ( =67,231, 322 x 70%)

(6) Deductions and subrogation of the National Pension Service;

(A) Sheet Evidence 4, B or 12

(B) 1) Part of damages: 13,000,000 won

2) The amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence between the amount of medical expenses paid by the counter-defendant and the amount of medical expenses: 28,802,840 won.

[320,000 x 30% of medical fees for traffic accidents + 30,867,570 】 Contribution rate of 90% of medical fees for brain transfusion 】 10% of contribution rate of traffic accidents 】 30% of negligence rate];

(iii) Subrogation of the part arising from a traffic accident, among disability pensions of the National Pension Service: 1,479,846 won;

( =14,798,460 】 10%)

(c) Amount after deduction and subrogation.

3,779,239 won ( =47,061,925-13,00,000-28,802,840-1, 479,846)

(7) Consolation money

(A) Grounds for consideration: The age, family relation, the background and result of the instant accident, the degree of fault of both parties, the degree of contribution to the king against the aftermath disability, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case.

(b) Amount determined: 24,000,000 won;

(8) Reorganization

With respect to the counterclaim for the damage amounting to 27,779,239 won (property damage amounting to 3,779,239 + 24,000,000 won) and 24,000,000 won cited by the judgment of the court of first instance among them, the counterclaim for the damage amounting to 27,779,239 won and 27,000 won (property damage amounting to 24,00,000), the counterclaim for the damage amounting to 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 21, 2004, which is the date of the traffic accident, until November 4, 2008, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, until the date of full payment, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the date of full payment; 3,779,239 won from November 21, 2004, which is one of the parties.

3. On the motion of the succeeding intervenor

【Succession Intervenor’s Claim】

The successor asserts that the successor claim damages against the counterclaim defendant by subrogation within the scope of the disability pension paid to the counterclaim in accordance with the National Pension Act.

[Judgment]

(1) In full view of the evidence (B) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged.

The successor intervenor paid 6,773,130 won to Lessee from July 31, 2007 to September 28, 2007, and 3,703,010 won from October 31, 2007 to April 30, 2008, 2,701,450 won from May 30, 2008 to September 30, 2008, and 14,798,460 won from October 31, 2008 to December 31, 2008.

(2) However, when a disability pension or survivor pension has been paid due to a cause for payment of the disability pension or survivor pension caused by a third party’s act, the National Pension Service shall subrogate the beneficiary to the third party with respect to his/her right to claim compensation for damages against the third party within the scope of the amount of benefits (Article 114(1) of the National Pension Act). Therefore, in order for the National Pension Service to substitute and acquire the right to claim compensation for damages, an accident (the cause for payment) occurred through a third party’s act, and the disability pension or survivor pension has already been paid to the third party, and the beneficiary has the right to claim compensation for damages against the third party. In this case, the scope of claims acquired by the National Pension Service shall be limited to the limit of the amount of the pension benefits paid by the beneficiary to the third party (excluding the materials and the amount of compensation for physical damage). In addition, if an accident falling under the cause for payment occurs due to a third party’s act and the beneficiary

According to the premise facts and the above facts, the counterclaim defendant is liable to pay damages of 1,479,846 won (14,798,460 x 10%) and 677,313 won (6,773,130 x 10%) from the following day after the payment date of each disability pension to the succeeding intervenor who subrogated the counterclaim, for the amount of 1,479,846 won (10%) and 67,313 won (6,73,130 x 10%) from the following day after the delivery of a duplicate of the application for intervention for intervention for which the succeeding intervenor seeks from October 207 to 370,301 won (3,703,010 x 10%) from the 208th day after the payment date of each disability pension to the 208th day after the due date of each disability pension x 70% of the application for intervention for succession (208% after the date of succession).

4. Conclusion

Thus, the counterclaim claim of the counterclaim is accepted on the ground of the above recognition scope, and the remainder of the counterclaim claim is dismissed on the ground of this ground. The plaintiff's claim of the succeeding intervenor including the extended part in this court is accepted within the above recognition scope, and the remainder of the counterclaim is dismissed on the ground of the ground of the above recognition scope. Since the part concerning the counterclaim and participation in the succession is unfair, among the judgment of the first instance court, the incidental appeal of the counterclaim defendant is partially accepted, and it is modified as per the disposition, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed on the ground that

Doctrine (Presiding Judge) The degree of merit of judges