beta
(영문) 대법원 2014.12.24 2012다9638

손해배상(기)

Text

The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court to which the case was remanded from the court of final appeal shall be bound by the court of final appeal to the extent that the factual and legal judgment rendered by the court of final appeal as the reason for reversal is presented in the course of the trial after remanding the case, and there is no change in the facts constituting the basis for binding judgment, unless the new assertion or evidence is presented,

Therefore, although the judgment of the court below after remand did not change any change in the facts that served as the basis of the above binding judgment before and after the remand, it is against the binding force of the judgment of the remanding, it is unlawful to render a judgment contrary to the legal judgment of the court below as the ground for reversal.

(2) On March 15, 2001, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding. 2. The court below determined that the above assumption was beyond reasonable reasoning, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the difference between the medical care benefit cost actually paid to the medical care institution during the medical care benefit period of this case and the medical care benefit cost calculated on the basis of KRW 109, which would have been determined on the basis of the maximum amount of the instant medical care benefit if the Plaintiff had not committed deception; (b) such assertion was based on the assumption that the Defendant would have manufactured and sold the instant medical product, even if the maximum amount of the instant medical care benefit was determined on the basis of KRW 109, in assessing the financial status that would have existed without the Defendant’s tort; and (c) the maximum amount of the instant medical care benefit is not guaranteed with the maximum amount of KRW 109, as stated in its reasoning.

Then, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not manufacture and sell the instant drug, if the maximum amount of the instant drug was determined as KRW 109.