2015Da7015 Damages (i.e., losses)

A

Dong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na34173 Decided November 20, 2014

June 23, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. The remaining appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, on the ground that the instant agreement does not affect the instant claim seeking the payment of damages arising from the subsequent disability, such as the Plaintiff’s symptoms of mental illness and developments in both sides, which could not have been anticipated at the time of the agreement.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the non-committee agreement

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the causal link between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s present symptoms of the present situation on both sides is recognized, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

3. As to the third ground of appeal, if the expected amount of damages, such as future medical expenses, has already been incurred at the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, the damages in the past part can be compensated only for the damages actually incurred. As such, with respect to the expected medical expenses up to the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, it should be recognized as king’s medical expenses only within the extent of the scope of the actual medical expenses, and if the expected medical expenses have not been spent by the time of the closing of arguments, it should be determined by considering whether such expenses will be incurred in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da5378, Apr. 23, 2002)

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court, the lower court, based on the relevant recruitment evidence, spent KRW 1,409,925 per annum for the future surgery and treatment expenses, and there is no evidence to support that the aforementioned treatment expenses were actually spent by May 14, 2013, which is the date of closing of argument in the first instance judgment, and thus, deemed to have been disbursed at intervals of one year from May 15, 2013 to the life expectancy period for the convenience of calculation.

The current price at the time of the accident after deducting simplified persons was calculated, and medical treatment is required between 3,629,911 won per annum for mental medical treatment expenses and seven years after the date of appraisal from February 15, 2012 to February 14, 2019, which is the date of appraisal, and there is no evidence to prove that medical treatment expenses have been spent by the date of the closing of argument in the first instance judgment, so the present price at the time of the accident after deducting interim interest was calculated on the basis of the convenience of calculation, as it was spent at one year from May 15, 2013 to February 14, 2019.

However, during the period of the accident, the sum of medical expenses expected to be borne by the plaintiff every year from the date of the accident, and mental medical expenses are the aggregate of medical expenses expected to be covered and disbursed for seven years from the date of physical examination. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in order to accept such expenses, the estimated medical expenses up to the date of the closing of argument in the lower court, which is the fact-finding court, should be examined to determine whether the plaintiff actually spent such medical expenses, and if the plaintiff did not undergo such treatment by the date of closing of argument in the lower court, it is unclear whether the same amount will be required even if the treatment begins thereafter, and thus, the amount of future medical expenses should be calculated after re-examination.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s determination that calculated future medical expenses based on the date of the closing of argument in the first instance, which is not the date of closing of argument in the lower court, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on calculation of future medical expenses

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo

Justices Kim Yong-deok

The Chief Justice Park Jae-young

Justices Kim Gin-young