[1] The court's limitations on the exercise of the right to ask for clarification

[2] In a case where only one of the parties files an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed a part of a single claim, whether the appellate court can examine the entire claim, such as the occurrence of the claim (affirmative)

[1] The court's right to request verification is recognized only when it is evident that the parties are not able to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding in light of the degree of litigation, and in all cases where there is no proof as to the disputed facts, the court shall not demand the proof until it obtains the conviction.

[2] Even if only one of the parties to the judgment of the first instance that dismissed part of a claim, an appeal was filed only by one of the parties to the judgment of the first instance, the entire claim, which was the object of the judgment of the first instance, is indivisiblely transferred to the appellate court. However, the scope of the appellate court’s trial is limited to the scope of the appeal filed by the appellant, but it is inevitable to examine the validity of the claim within the scope of the judgment, including the occurrence of the claim, in order to examine the validity of the claim within the scope

[1] Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 407(1) and 415 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Meu6638 delivered on April 27, 1990 (Gong1990Sang, 1154) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5047 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991Sang, 1529) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da58200 delivered on April 10, 1998

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Jeon Ha-han, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 2001Na4003 delivered on October 2, 2002

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On the first and third grounds for appeal

The court's right to request the proof is limited to cases where it is evident that the parties are not able to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding in light of the degree of litigation, and in all cases where there is no proof as to the disputed facts, the court does not have to demand the proof until it obtains the conviction (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5047 delivered on April 23, 191).

According to the records, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit for damages of this case against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff 1 was injured by the plaintiff 1's cargo vehicle (hereinafter "the plaintiff 1") who was injured by the defendant's comprehensive automobile insurance, the plaintiff 1's driver's cargo vehicle ("the plaintiff 1") who was injured by the central line. The defendant's dismissal of the defendant was caused by the plaintiff 1's collision with the central line, and the plaintiff 1 did not prove that the plaintiff 1's accident occurred due to the plaintiff 1's non-indicted 1's failure to prove that the plaintiff 1's failure to prove that the plaintiff 1's failure to exercise the central line was caused by the plaintiff 1's failure to prove that the plaintiff 1's failure to exercise the central line was caused by the plaintiff 1's fault, and the court of first instance recognized the defendant's liability for damages, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the plaintiff 1's failure to prove the plaintiff 1's failure to exercise the central right.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Even if only one of the parties has filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed a part of a claim, the entire claim, which was the object of the judgment of the court of first instance, is indivisiblely transferred to the appellate court. However, the scope of the appellate court’s trial is limited to the limit of the appeal filed by the appellant (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da58200, Apr. 10, 1998). However, it is inevitable to review the overall claim, such as the occurrence of the claim, in order to examine the propriety of the claim belonging to the scope of the judgment, and it cannot be said that it goes against the purpose of restricting the scope of adjudication.

The court below acknowledged the defendant's liability for damages and judged that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff 1 who infringed the central line first, and that the accident of this case was not caused by the negligence of the plaintiff 1 who infringed the central line in order to avoid a collision, and that the plaintiff's claim of this case was not caused by negligence. However, since only the plaintiffs appealed, dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff 1's extension claim in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of the appellate court's judgment.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below is justified in finding the facts that the plaintiff's vehicle, among the vehicles in the valley section in accordance with the first lane, has discovered that the plaintiff's vehicle was coming to go beyond the center line and operated the motor vehicle rapidly on the left side in order to avoid the collision, but the vehicle was turned to go beyond the opposite lane and came to go to go beyond the opposite lane, by taking account of the shape of the accident point road, the point, direction, length, the damaged condition of the plaintiff and the defendant's vehicle caused by the defendant's vehicle, and the collision with the plaintiff's vehicle that returned to the opposite lane, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or incomplete trial due to any violation of the rules of evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)