Representative of Law and Lee Jae-Nam

State of the litigation performer MD,OR, MR, country of origin;

Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu State of a State of a State of a State of the State;

Representative State of State

2. Both maps (states-states-states-state maps).

Dennam City National Map

3. A country of origin (a country of origin), or a country of origin

Seoul Eunpyeong-gu National State Map

4. National maps (national maps of the State).

Sub-Seocheon-gu National Library of the State

5. stuffed national maps (states-states-state maps).

State of the State of the State of the United Kingdom of Busan

6. Minimum national maps (states-states).

State of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul National State

7. This subparagraph (EAAAAAA)

State of the State of Jung-gu, Incheon

8. Chinese maps (states-states-states and national maps);

인천 부평구 ▩▩▩▩▩

9. A country of origin (state of origin, DDR).

United States of regional origin, State of regional origin, State of regional origin, or State of regional origin

[Judgment of the court below] The defendants et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Tong-Jin Park, Earrheat, Mawn

All remaining appeals by the plaintiff are dismissed.

1. As to the part of the claim for medical expenses

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, after compiling the evidence adopted, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and found that the participants of the assembly of this case who participated in the assembly of this case who had been organized by Defendant Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Federation"), had attempted to enter nearby the assembly of this case, despite the police's order of dissolution, and attempted to leave the assembly of this case - the police officers in the process of exercising violence against the police officers who suppress some of the participants of the assembly of this case, including the remaining defendants, and the defendant Federation did not comply with the order of assembly of this case as the organizer of the assembly of this case to prevent the assembly of this case and actively notify the participants of the fact that they did not leave the assembly of this case and did not harm the assembly of this case. Rather, since the organizer of the assembly of this case should voluntarily leave the assembly of this case to the participants of the assembly of this case and enter the assembly of this case, the organizer of the assembly of this case did not comply with the order of assembly of this case, and therefore, the remaining participants of the assembly of this case did not comply with the order of this case.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that limits the defendants' liability for damages as above in light of the following points.

In the claim for damages of this case, even though violence or damage is anticipated, the court below did not properly perform the duty to maintain order as the organizer of the assembly, etc., even if there is an essential limit as stated in the court below's decision, so long as the organizer of the assembly et al. is liable to compensate for damages due to negligence within the limit, the scope of the liability for damages is all related to the pertinent negligence, and the scope of the liability cannot be limited again on the ground that there is such limit (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da60022, Dec. 10, 2009). The remaining grounds for limitation of liability, which the court below, are not appropriate for the defendants' limitation of liability in this case. Thus, it is difficult to view that limiting the defendants' liability as such to the extent consistent with the ideology of the Compensation Act that fairly shared the damage, and there is no other obvious ground to accept it.

Nevertheless, solely based on its stated reasoning, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations to determine the scope of liability for damages or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on limitation of liability for damages, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. The court of final appeal may investigate and determine the part concerning the claim for equipment loss only within the extent of filing an appeal based on the grounds of final appeal. The grounds of final appeal specify the grounds of final appeal and states specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the law. In the grounds of final appeal submitted by the appellant, the appellate brief should be treated as failing to submit the grounds of final appeal in the absence of such specific and explicit reasons (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377 delivered on April 23, 199).

The petition of this case and the grounds of appeal are only stated as to the legitimacy of limitation on liability regarding the part of the judgment below regarding the claim for medical expenses, and there is no mention as to the part concerning the claim for equipment loss. Therefore, this part of the judgment below cannot be deemed to have been submitted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Plaintiff regarding the claim for medical expenses is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

State Justice Cha Han-sung

Justices Shin Young-young