Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, where the victim was negligent in the occurrence or expansion of damages, or there is a ground to limit the tortfeasor’s liability, the scope of liability should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages. However, the fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence or liability limitation is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42532 Decided October 11, 2012). Examining the record in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the instant traffic accident occurred at the beginning of the crosswalk that the Plaintiff intends to cross at a low time, and that the insured vehicle was sufficiently able to view that the Plaintiff entered the crosswalk because there was no particular obstacle to the view in crossing the crosswalk, and in such a case, the Plaintiff was not negligent in verifying the progress of the said vehicle and thus, there was no negligence in crossing the crosswalk, and that such negligence by the Plaintiff was processed for the occurrence or expansion of damages, and that the percentage of the instant traffic accident is 10%.

There is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

(2) As to the scope of damages, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff ought to calculate the lost income based on the monthly income at the time of his/her employment in Seoul, and calculated the lost income based on the urban daily wage. ② During the 774th day of hospitalization in Seoul F&D, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lost its entire labor capacity in light of the timing of hospitalization and the content of treatment, etc. as indicated in its reasoning, and ③ The Plaintiff is the instant traffic accident