1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the fact-finding or the ratio of the limitation of liability in relation to offsetting negligence or the equitable burden of damages is within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(2) The Defendant is liable for damages incurred by the instant accident, in violation of the duty of care and the duty of safety consideration under the good faith principle, on the ground that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of a local driver selected by the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da86709, Oct. 11, 2012). After the instant accident, the lower court limited the Defendant’s liability to 20% on the ground that the instant accident appears to be a relatively minor contact accident, and other travelers other than the Plaintiff appeared to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damages, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s inherent factors contributed significantly to the occurrence and expansion of damages.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s fact-finding or judgment on the grounds for limitation of liability cannot be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Therefore, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. The court below held that the Plaintiff was liable for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s mental disorder caused by the shock of head’s body due to the instant accident, while holding that the Defendant is liable for compensating for the damages.