September 28, 2017

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1 671,220,310 won and 105,000 won among them from the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and to the remaining 566,220,310 won with interest of 15% per annum from the day following the day of service of the written application for modification of the claim of this case and the written application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment, and to the plaintiff 2, 667,220,310 won with interest of 10,000 won from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, and to the remaining 567,220,310 won with interest of 15% per annum from the day following the day of service of the written application for modification of the claim of this case and the written application for modification of the cause

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance, which orders payment under the below, shall be revoked. The defendants jointly pay to the plaintiffs 1, 344,286,602 won, 343,786,602 won, and 343,786,602 won, and each of them shall be jointly paid 15% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the application for correction of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim

B. The Defendants

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendants ordering the Defendants to pay exceeding KRW 84,126,896 to the Defendants and KRW 84,126,896 against the Defendants is revoked, and the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendants corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed in its entirety.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) there is no dispute over the instant case after the fourth 7th of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) evidence Nos. 5 through 7; and (c) evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including additional numbers); and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings; (d) the Plaintiff’s “Plaintiff” as provided in the first 10th of the judgment is used as “the deceased”; and (e) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the Plaintiffs and the Defendants’ assertion, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence

2. The plaintiffs and the defendants' limitation of liability ratio

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of evidence No. 4 and the evidence No. 4 as a whole, the deceased committed the accident of this case at a speed exceeding 85 km per hour at night, and caused an accident of contact with the name of the school located on the right side of the new king, by neglecting the duty of the front and the right and the right and the right and the right by neglecting the duty of the deceased at a speed exceeding 80 km, and caused the accident of contact with the name of the school located on the right side of the new king. The front body of the accident occurred in the direction of visibility, while the front body of the vehicle was parked in the direction of visibility, the front body of the vehicle was parked in the middle, with the center separation, and the risk of the subsequent accident was high, without observing the speed limit and the duty of the front body of the deceased. According to the result of the investigation by the Road Traffic Safety Investigation Department of the North Gyeong-west of the Road Traffic Authority, it seems that the Defendants’ full contact with the front body and the right of the deceased, rather than the vehicle.

Furthermore, the Defendants asserted that the deceased’s failure to wear a safety belt should be taken into account due to the negligence, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion solely on the description of the evidence No. 4 and the part of the deceased’s bodily injury, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it [In light of the description of the evidence No. 1-8 (Real Dust Survey Report) of this case, it is recognized that the police officer who investigated the traffic accident of this case confirms that the deceased was wearing a safety belt at the time of the accident of this case].

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs and the defendants' assertion is not accepted.

3. Claim for the deduction of medical expenses indemnity or set-off by the Defendants

The Defendants asserted that the Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., an insurance company of the deceased, paid 30,893,630 won of the medical expenses incurred before the deceased’s death to the Plaintiffs, and paid 15,446,810 won, which is 50% of them, to the Defendants. As such, the Defendants asserted that the amount equivalent to the deceased’s negligence should be offset against the amount equivalent to the deceased’s negligence out of the total amount of 30,893,630 won of the medical expenses 30,893,630 won of the deceased’s medical expenses and the amount equivalent to the deceased’s negligence. However, as long as the Defendants’ liability ratio is recognized as 70% in this case, the Defendants should bear 21,625,541 won of the deceased’s medical expenses, which is equivalent to 70% of the total amount of the expenses to be borne by the Defendants, since there is no proof that the Defendants spent more than their respective charges, the Defendants

4. The defendants' assertion of interest in arrears

After the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendants tried to pay the amount of money ordered to be paid to the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance, but since payment delay of principal and interest of the judgment of the court of first instance was caused by the plaintiffs' refusal to receive and thus, the interest delay in payment of principal and interest of the judgment of the court of first instance shall not be added to the interest for the principal of the judgment of the court of first instance after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact of refusal to receive by the plaintiffs merely with the statement

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal by the plaintiffs and the defendants is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Judges Ansan-ho (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-young