2018Da244617 (principal lawsuit) Damages

2018Da244624 (Counterclaim)

Saryary Appellee

A Stock Company

Law Firm Anon-Appellant, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Go Chang-il

Appellant

B

Law Firm Kcel, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Choi Byung-chul, Gyeong-dong et al.

E Company

Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na208577 (Main Office), 2016 Ghana, May 11, 2018

2085584 Judgment (Counterclaim)

June 13, 2019

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal and the remainder of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal are all dismissed.

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

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. As to the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts based on adopted evidence: (i) it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was unable to set specific work plans by taking into account the weight of salvine or the weight of salvines of the salvine while inserting the salvine, etc. of the salvine; (ii) the Plaintiff as a lessee should have sufficiently shared detailed information about the purpose and character of the work using the salvine in advance with the pilotJ at least in a close consultation with the Plaintiff; (iii) it is difficult to see that the process was sufficiently completed; and (iv) the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff’s actions for booming salvage against the work guidelines. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on negligence, duty of care, proximate causal relation, etc. in determining tort, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation, etc.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff was insufficient to recognize that the damage incurred by delay in air caused by the instant accident was KRW 634,541,756.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope of compensation for damages or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”)’s ground of appeal

A. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the determination of the admission of facts or the ratio of limitation on the grounds for limitation of liability, such as comparative negligence, in a tort compensation case is within the discretionary authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is remarkably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da50586, Jan. 21,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) it is difficult to see that the plaintiff in a construction business specializing in installing plants is aware of the characteristics or specifications of various kinds of weather seasons; (b) it is the defendant and his employees to possess, maintain, and operate equipment; and (c) J holding certified operation qualifications for large construction machinery; (b) it is necessary for the plaintiff to jointly select an appropriate installation location of the mid-term season of this case in consideration of the total weight of figures, including accessories, such as garry, in consultation with the plaintiff; and (d) the personal character weight by the distance of the mid-term season of this case; and (e) if there is a work instruction exceeding the artificial weight, it has a duty of care to prevent accidents by refusing it for the reason that it is not possible, the ratio of liability for the accident of this case is 10% for the plaintiff and the defendant 90% for the defendant.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of liability ratio, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(1) In a case where a third party, at the same time, is liable to compensate for an insurance accident of a non-life insurance and is liable to compensate for damages against the insured, the insurance money received from the insurer pursuant to the non-life insurance contract, is of a quid pro quo nature of the insurance premium paid by the insurer to the insurer in preparation for the occurrence of the insurance accident, and is separate from the third party's liability for damages. Therefore, such insurance money

Therefore, the insured may claim against a third party for the performance of his/her liability to compensate for any remaining losses, which are not compensated as insurance money received from the insurer (However, the liability within a limited scope by negligence offsetting, etc.; hereinafter the same shall apply). If the total amount of damages remains more than the amount of the third party’s liability for damages, the insured may claim against the third party for the full amount of its liability to compensate for the damages. If the remaining amount of damages is less than the amount of the third party’s liability for damages, the insurer may claim against the third party for the remainder amount of damages. In the latter case, the insurer may claim against the third party by subrogation the difference between the amount of the third party’s liability for damages and the amount of the remaining amount of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2014Da46211, Jan. 22,

(2) The lower court recognized the Defendant’s total amount of damages as KRW 6,076,975,828, and determined that KRW 2,466,693,611, which the Defendant received from the Intervenor, the insurer of the non-life insurance of this case, was the amount of damages that the Defendant would ultimately have to pay to the Defendant, and determined that KRW 361,028,221, which is equivalent to 10% of the above remainder, as the Plaintiff’s liability for damages was limited to 10% by limiting the Plaintiff’s liability to compensate for damages.

However, according to the judgment of the court below, the amount of the plaintiff's damage compensation liability finally admitted by the court below is KRW 607,697,582, and the amount calculated by deducting KRW 2,466,693,611, which the defendant received from the defendant's Intervenor from the defendant's Intervenor was 3,610,282,217, and the amount of the defendant's damage compensation liability that the defendant can claim against the plaintiff is the total amount of KRW 607,697,582.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of claim for damages where the insured received non-life insurance money, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Of the part against the Defendant regarding the counterclaim of the lower judgment, the part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the Defendant’s remaining appeals are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Supreme Court Decision 200

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Kim Jae-hwan in charge