logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.14 2016나2071875
손해배상
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order shall be revoked.

Reasons

"1. Basic Facts," among the reasons for this Court's ruling;

2. Occurrence of liability for damages:

3. Within the scope of liability for damages.

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance until "the occurrence of damages equivalent to the lost pension". Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and

B. We examine the judgment of consolation money from the judgment.

3. Scope of liability for damages

B. As shown in the circumstances of the instant accident, consolation money shall be determined as KRW 80,000,000, and consolation money of KRW 20,000,000,000, and KRW 200,000,000,000,000, in full view of all the circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the relationship between the Defendant and the Deceased, the Deceased’s age, and various circumstances after the instant accident.

C. The Defendant, in a criminal case, deposited KRW 40 million to the Plaintiffs, and additionally deposited KRW 25 million after the judgment of the first instance was rendered, and deposited KRW 65 million in full, which is the damage compensation in the judgment of the first instance. Thus, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the consolation money should be determined or the said deposit should be deducted from the damage compensation.

As seen earlier, the consolation money was calculated by comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

In addition, if the perpetrator of a tort deposited money in relation to the criminal punishment, if the victim paid it, the amount shall be deemed as part of the damage compensation in principle (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43922, Jan. 15, 199). However, the deposit of part of the amount of the claim may not take effect, unless the creditor accepts it.

arrow