A. The scope of review by the court of final appeal

B. The appellate court cited the reasons indicated in the judgment of the first instance and the ratio of negligence

1. The grounds of appeal are that the subject of appeal is a certain part of the judgment below and how it is against the law. Therefore, the grounds of appeal do not include the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and only contain the contents of the court below's fault offsetting the damage to property, and it does not specify any reasons as to the consolation money portion, it cannot be deemed that there was a submission of the grounds of appeal

2. Where the court below accepted the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the occurrence of liability for damages and the existence and degree of the plaintiff's negligence, it can be seen that the court below's approval of the same purpose as the judgment of the court of first instance, as well as the basic facts of offsetting the negligence, and as well as the rate of the victim's negligence, although it can be seen that the court below's approval of the court of first instance is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance. However, there is contradiction in the reasons that the court below

Article 401 of the Civil Procedure Act, Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Park Jae-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2763 delivered on March 14, 1980

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding the property damage against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals and other plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

First of all, we examine the appeal concerning the consolation money portion of the plaintiff and the remaining appeals by each plaintiffs.

The appeal under the Civil Procedure Act is allowed only when it is based on a violation of the law in the judgment of the court of the second instance, and the court of final appeal investigates the appeal within the scope of the appeal by the grounds of final appeal. Thus, the subject of the appeal is a part of the judgment of the court below, and how it is in violation of the law. In this case, the plaintiffs' petition of final appeal and the grounds of final appeal are not indicated in the health room and in the petition of final appeal. The grounds of final appeal are merely stated in the judgment of the court below as to damages to the plaintiff's property, and there are only reasons causing the plaintiff's fault in the judgment of the court below as to damages to the plaintiff's property, and there is no explicit reasons as to the consolation money of the court below, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a submission

Next, we examine the plaintiff's first ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance of this case, since the accident of this case was caused by negligence on the part of the defendant's employee, the defendant is liable for compensating the above plaintiff for damages. However, since the above plaintiff's negligence was processed as well as in the occurrence of the above accident, as stated in its holding, it is reasonable to take this into account in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant. The court determined that the sum of the amounts of property damages to be compensated by the above plaintiff should be calculated as KRW 31,023,136, the sum of the amounts of property damages to be compensated by the defendant to be compensated by the above plaintiff, and set-off based on the above negligence should be determined as KRW 20,00,00.

However, in its reasoning, the court below decided that the defendant shall compensate the above plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 31,023,136, as property damage, or that the above plaintiff shall compensate for damages in consideration of the degree of negligence of the plaintiff, since the court below's explanation of the cause of occurrence of the defendant's liability, legal grounds, and the plaintiff's negligence points and degree of negligence involved in the accident are the same as the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, pursuant to Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court below stated that the defendant shall compensate the above plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 31,023,136.

However, as above, the court below cited the reasoning stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the occurrence of the damages liability in this case, the existence and degree of the above plaintiff's negligence, and the reasons stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, as well as the basic facts to offset the negligence, and the degree of the tortfeasor and the victim's negligence to determine the scope of the defendant's damages, i.e., the percentage of the victim's negligence

Even though the court below did not state any reasonable reason, it cannot avoid criticism that the court below dealt with the degree of negligence of the above plaintiff more heavily than that recognized by the court of first instance, and accordingly, offsets the above plaintiff's negligence. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no reason to avoid criticism that the above plaintiff's negligence is inconsistent with the preceding and subsequent reasons of the judgment of the court below. (See Supreme Court Decision 73Da1753 delivered on June 11, 1974.) Therefore, the argument of the appellant who caused the above error is justified.

Accordingly, the part of the plaintiff's appeal concerning the plaintiff's property damage is with merit, and it is further deemed that the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed. The remaining part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed. The plaintiff's remaining grounds of appeal and the appeal by other plaintiffs are not submitted. It is dismissed. The costs of the appeal to the dismissed part of the appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)