손해배상(자)
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. With respect to the grounds of appeal omitting judgment, it is sufficient to indicate the judgment on the party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it is possible to recognize that the text of the judgment is justifiable (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a specific judgment on the party’s assertion is not indicated in the written judgment, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment if it is possible to acknowledge or reject such assertion in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment, and even if it is obvious that the assertion would be rejected even if the judgment was not actually rendered, it cannot be deemed that there was
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da87174 Decided April 26, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da87174, Apr. 26, 201). With respect to the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant for survivors’ benefits, medical care benefits, and funeral expenses under the Act on the Prevention of and Compensation for School Safety Accidents following the Death of the Deceased (hereinafter “School Safety Act”), the Defendant may not receive from the Defendant in order to maximize the amount of damages for the Plaintiffs, and the future medical care expenses, and the future medical care expenses are not applied to the Federation of Private Passenger Transport Business Association (hereinafter “Federation”), and the amount of survivors’ benefits and medical care benefits, etc. under the School Safety Act, which exceeds the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, are claimed to the Defendant. In that the Plaintiffs received future medical care expenses from the Federation in the first instance trial and are exempt from the Defendant’s liability when receiving damages from the Federation, the lower court did not explicitly determine this.
However, the lower court determined as follows.