[손해배상][집20(3)민,001]
The case holding that there was a misapprehension of the legal principle of comparative negligence regarding tort.
In this case, even if the victim's negligence is recognized, the degree of negligence is not known to refer to the amount of damages in determining the amount of damages, but it cannot be viewed as the degree of the tortfeasor's exemption from liability, but there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of comparative negligence.
Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 396 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Red Support in the First Instance, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1708 delivered on March 18, 1971
The original judgment shall be reversed, and
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1 was examined, and the court below's judgment was based on the macroficial evidence, and the non-party's interest interest was leased the building of this case to the plaintiff by the agreement of 18,00 won per annum on March 18, 1968 with the delegation of the right to dispose of the building of this case from the non-party's owner non-party Lee Jong-ok, and the plaintiff did not pay rent of 10,000 won per annum on July 15, 1968, and 19,000 won per annum on July 19, 1968, and 19,00 won per annum on the same year, 8,9,000 won, and 10,000 won per annum on October 19, 1969. Thus, the court below's decision that notified the plaintiff of the termination of the contract of this case by the agreement of 40,400 won per annum on March 18, 1969.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4 are examined.
The judgment of the court below held that since the plaintiff leased this building based on each of the above evidences and purchased food business permission from the Do governor of Chungcheongnam-nam on May 7, 1968 and sold this building to the defendant 1 on March 18, 1969 for 310,000 won to the non-party while the non-party engaged in entertainment business in the above building with the trade name "Grarale" in the above building, the plaintiff's lease contract with the plaintiff was terminated as above, the non-party shall pay the remaining price of the above building to the non-party on May 9 of the same year, and the plaintiff's right to demand the delivery of the above building was infringed upon by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 was removed from the above building's entrance and exit of the above building to the non-party 1 and the non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's non-party 9's tort.
However, even if the plaintiff terminated the building lease contract between the plaintiff and the non-party on the ground of a fluority, and the non-party did not voluntarily order the above building, the defendants who purchased the above building from the non-party or Dong will execute the above building by obtaining the name of debt in accordance with the procedure of law. Thus, the plaintiff's failure to voluntarily order and thus caused the defendants to commit this tort. According to each evidence cited by the following original judgment, the defendants can not be seen as having committed intimidation and violence in cooperation with the non-party, and even though the plaintiff acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff failed to conduct business from the next day of this case, it can be seen that the plaintiff's negligence did not have any influence on the conclusion of the judgment, even though the plaintiff's decision did not remove the fluore board in spite of the fact that the plaintiff was unable to do so, it can be seen that the plaintiff's negligence did not have any influence on the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, even if the plaintiff's judgment did not remove the above fluority, it can be found that the plaintiff's negligence did not have been justified.
Therefore, the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating Justices.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu