A. Whether the fact-finding and the determination of ratio are matters of full power of the fact-finding court

B. The meaning of "company" under Article 96 of the Company Reorganization Act

A. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case constitutes the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

B. Article 96 of the Company Reorganization Act provides that the company's business operation and the right to manage and dispose of its property shall be exclusive to the administrator pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the same Act, and the purpose of the lawsuit concerning the company's property is to exclude the party's qualification in the lawsuit concerning the company's property and to recognize the party's qualification to the administrator. Thus, the "company" under Article 96 of the same Act refers to the reorganization company, and it does not constitute a new company incorporated

A. Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act; b) Articles 53(1) and 96 of the Company Reorganization Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Da1466 delivered on November 26, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 193) 94Da7300 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2834) 93Da52402 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1281)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Pacific Central Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na41316 delivered on February 28, 1995

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Pacific Co., Ltd.

The fact-finding or determination of the rate of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case falls under the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da1466 delivered on Nov. 26, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 91Da12073 delivered on Feb. 11, 1992). In light of the overall circumstances at the time of the accident of this case recognized by the records, it is not recognized that the court below's evaluation of the rate of comparative negligence of the deceased non-party 1 to 30% is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of comparative negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in

2. As to the ground of appeal by Defendant Collaborative Construction Company

The First Ground for Appeal

The purpose of Article 96 of the Company Reorganization Act is to exclude the qualifications of the party to the reorganization company in the lawsuit on the property of the reorganization company, and to recognize the qualifications as the party to the lawsuit as the administrator, as the liquidation company's business operation and the right to manage and dispose of the property are exclusive to the administrator pursuant to Article 53 (1) of the same Act. Thus, the "company" under Article 96 of the same Act means the reorganization company, and any new company incorporated under the reorganization plan shall not be deemed to be a new company. In the same regard, the court below's decision to reject the above defendant's defense against the lawsuit against the defendant Shin New Construction Co., Ltd., a new company incorporated under the reorganization plan under the reorganization plan is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the qualifications of the party to the new

The Second Ground of Appeal

According to the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below as to the point of view of the theory of lawsuit are justified in light of the relation of evidence as stated by the court below, and there is no error of law as to the facts contrary to the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

All arguments are not accepted because the judgment of the court below was removed on the premise that the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below are criticized or that the facts acknowledged by the court below are inconsistent with the facts acknowledged by the court below.

3. 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)