[손해배상][집14(2)민,041]
In respect of the loss of profit due to hospitalization, the claim for damages, and the absence of hearing
Recognizing the fact that the plaintiff should undergo hospitalization for six months from the time when the accident occurred due to the injury in this case, the court below rejected the whole damages due to the plaintiff's loss of profits during the treatment period without examining and determining the damage caused by the loss of profits during the treatment period. In addition, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all the reasons.
Articles 193(1)4 and 193(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff (Attorney Ahn Jae-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Republic of Korea (Attorney Kim Sung-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1686 delivered on February 11, 1966
The part of the original judgment rejecting the claim for damages due to the loss of Plaintiff’s operating profit by the Plaintiff’s final appeal is reversed.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
Of the costs of appeal, those arising from the defendant's appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
On the basis of the records, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s appraisal document prepared by the Nonparty, the Plaintiff’s future operation ability, and the part on which the decrease occurred, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s future operation ability has decreased by more than 50%. Thus, there is no ground for appeal on this premise.
However, according to the plaintiff's complaint and the plaintiff's preparatory brief of December 15, 1965, it is clear that the plaintiff claimed damages from January 30, 1962, which was the date of damage, due to the loss of operating profit, and the judgment of the court below also recognized that the plaintiff had received medical treatment from various hospitals, such as ○○○ Hospital, etc. from the accident caused by the plaintiff's injuries, and that at least six months have to undergo a sex operation in the future, he/she should undergo a sex operation. However, even though the judgment of the court below did not deliberate and decide on the damage caused by the loss of operating profit during the treatment period due to the absence of any obstacle to the plaintiff's social activities at the time of the judgment, the entire claim for damages due to the loss of operating profit cannot be dismissed, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss this point, and the part rejecting the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the loss of operating profit in the original judgment cannot be reversed.
Next, we examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal:
In light of the same circumstances as the original judgment, it shall be deemed that the Defendant’s sex surgery on the part of the Plaintiff is necessary, and therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant has a duty to compensate for the expenses. Therefore, the argument is groundless.
Therefore, by the Plaintiff’s appeal, the part rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim for damages from the loss of operating profit in the original judgment is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which
All remaining appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro