[구상금][공1994.11.15.(980),2958]
A. Whether the disposition right does not violate the principle of disposal right even if the amount of damages which forms the basis of the claim exceeds the claim amount claimed by the plaintiff, if the balance ordering payment after offsetting negligence does not exceed the claim amount
(b) The case holding that the ratio of fault of buses and trucks is 4:6 at night in an accident that collisions a truck parked on an expressway due to a breakdown;
A. Even though the court acknowledged the amount of damages, which serves as the basis of the claim, exceeds the amount claimed by the defendant, the court cannot be deemed to have violated the principle of party disposition in the scope of compensation for damages unless the court orders payment in excess of the plaintiff's above amount of claim based on the reduction rate of negligence.
(b) The case affirming the judgment below which assessed the fault ratio of bus drivers and truck drivers as 4:6, in case where the negligence of not taking safety measures, such as setting up a sign informing the broken vehicle on the rear side of the vehicle while the truck driver stops the vehicle on the side while driving the vehicle on the side at night, and the negligence of not taking safety measures, such as setting up a sign informing the broken vehicle on the rear side of the vehicle, and where the bus driver negligent in driving the bus while driving the bus, and the accident occurred, and the fault ratio of bus drivers and truck drivers is assessed as 4:6.
a.B. Article 763 of the Civil Code, Article 396 of the Civil Code, Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 74Da1298 delivered on February 25, 1975 (Gong1975, 8379) 75Da819 delivered on June 22, 1976 (Gong1976, 9229)
Dongyang Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant-Appellant] Han Jung-il Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant
Busan High Court Decision 93Na7259 delivered on February 18, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.
In this case, even though the court below recognized the amount of damages as 682,973,30 won, which is the basis of the claim against the defendant, the court below cannot be deemed to have violated the party's right to dispose of damages in the scope of compensation unless the court below ordered payment in excess of the plaintiff's above amount of claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da733, Mar. 24, 1970; 74Da1298, Feb. 25, 1975; 75Da819, Jun. 22, 1976).
The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.
In light of the records, the court below's determination that the accident of this case is just in the action that the non-party 1, who is the driver of the truck owned by the defendant company, parking the truck broken on the expressway at night, did not take safety measures such as setting up a sign informing the vehicle broken on the rear side while driving the vehicle on the side, and the non-party 2, who is the driver of the bus owned by Daejin Tourism, neglected to drive the bus on the expressway at night, did not go through safety measures such as setting up a sign informing the vehicle broken on the rear side of the vehicle, and the non-party 2, who is the driver of the bus owned by Daejin Tourism, neglected to stop on the expressway at night, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such
In addition, unless it is deemed that the determination of the comparative negligence ratio in a claim for damages caused by a tort is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, the fact-finding court's exclusive authority is a fact-finding case. In light of all the circumstances acknowledged by the records at the time of the accident of this case, the measures that the court below assessed the above non-party 2 and the above non-party 1, a bus driver, as 4:6 are appropriate, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to comparative negligence, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)