손해배상(기)
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, it is not permissible for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care, to assert that his or her liability should be mitigated on the ground of the victim’s negligence, but it is contrary to the good faith principle to allow a person who has such reason to make a claim for offsetting negligence. As such, it is not reasonable to interpret that some of the illegal persons cannot assert a comparative negligence even other illegal persons who have no such reason on the ground
In addition, the reason why it is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim's care to claim to reduce his/her liability on the ground of the victim's negligence is that, in cases where such intentional tort constitutes a zero-use act, recognizing the limitation of liability such as offsetting negligence, the perpetrator would ultimately possess profits from the tort and bring about a result contrary to the principles of equity or good faith. Therefore, even in cases of intentional tort, if the above result is not caused, limitation of liability based on the principle of comparative negligence or equity should be deemed to be possible.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da48561, Oct. 14, 2010). The lower court determined that Defendant B’s clan (hereinafter “Defendant clan”) is the Defendant B’s clan.
(ii) in the case of the deceased P (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).
(2) Although Defendant C and E entered into the instant sales contract as the representative of the Defendant clan, it is difficult to view that the deceased acquired the purchase price, and that the profits accrued from the disbursement of the deceased were attributed to the Defendant clan. (2) In the case of Defendant C and E, it is limited that the deceased independently concluded the instant sales contract and received the purchase price, and that the deceased took part in the act of acquisition, which is an intentional tort of the deceased, in the case of Defendant K, L and M.
(b).