[Judgment of the court below]

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorney misunderstanding and lodging)

Intervenor (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 25, 2009

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Da371467 Decided November 4, 2008

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,985,972 won and 41,013,897 won among them to November 4, 2008, the remainder of 14,972,075 won to the plaintiff, 5% per annum from August 17, 2005 to October 23, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant out of five minutes shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant, and the remaining part shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 177,845,572 won with 5% interest per annum from August 17, 2005 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under one of the following subparagraphs shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 136,831,675 won with 5% interest per annum from August 17, 2005 to the date of the pronouncement of this case and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts, and therefore, this Court shall apply the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act and reference it as it is.

2. Parts in height:

A. From August 17, 2005 to July 30, 2007, "from August 17, 2007 to July 30, 2007" in the 6th sentence of the judgment of the first instance shall be "from August 17, 2005 to July 31, 2007 (Provided, That the period is from August 28, 2005, from February 12, 206 to April 6, 2006, from April 22, 2006 to May 29, 2006; each period is from November 10 to December 14, 2006 to December 14, 2006; "within the period" in the 6th sentence shall be "from the date of the accident to the date of July 20, 207"; "from the date of the accident to the date of July 16, 2007".

B. During the 7th trial of the first instance court, “50% of the contribution to the king” was “30% of the contribution to the king in consideration of the content of this king and the aggravation of symptoms as a consequence of the infection by the operation department.”

(c) Forms 7 through 10 of the 7th judgment of the first instance court are as follows.

“On the other hand, in light of the principle of good faith or the principle of fair compensation system for damages, the victim of a tort has a general obligation to make efforts to prevent or mitigate the expansion of damages caused by the tort. If the victim fails to perform the above liability without any justifiable reason, the court may apply the comparative provisions of Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act to determine the amount of damages, and consider the fact of the victim’s nonperformance of obligation which has contributed to the expansion of damages. In a case where the above liability for mitigation of damages is an obligation to undergo an operation, the victim is not obliged to accept the operation in a case where the risk, serious or uncertain result is, but it is not reasonable to allow the victim to do so if it is an operation in which the customary and considerable result can be expected, and there is no reasonable reason to refuse it (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da45929, Sept. 25, 1992). In light of the physical observation of Samsung Hospital and the purport of the court’s oral inquiry about the above increase of risks to the plaintiff.

Therefore, even though the plaintiff is obligated to allow the above inverte milk, the amount of damages shall be determined by taking this into account, and the plaintiff shall be deemed to have received spine milk on December 31, 2008, which was after the date of closing argument in the first instance court of this case, and the plaintiff's labor disability loss rate shall be examined by dividing it into spine milk transfer and after the following.

(d) “12%” in the 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance court is “16.8% (=24%x0.7)”, and “50% in the 7th sentence of the 13th sentence” is respectively dismissed by “30%”.

(e) “7%” in the 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance is “9.8%” (=14%x0.7) and “50%” in the 7th sentence “B” in the 7th sentence.30%.

(f) positive and passive damages (“B” in the 8th 10th eth 10th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. e. 1

G. In the 9th and 3th proceedings of the judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “before the pronouncement date of this judgment was made after the date of the closing of the arguments in this case” shall be read as “ September 26, 2009, which is the day following the date of the closing of the arguments in this case

(h) Of the judgment of the court of first instance, “20,227,910 won” in Chapter 9 shall be deemed “12,136,746 won (= 40,455,820 wonx0.3)”

(i)the phrase “amount of damages calculated” attached to the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “amount of damages calculated” attached to the judgment of the court of first instance;

3. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to the plaintiff 5,985,972 won and the 41,013,897 won which are the 55,972 won and the 41,013,897 won which are the 55,972 won which are the 17 August 17, 2005 of the accident date of this case, which the defendant is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the 14,972,075 won which are the remaining 14,075 won which are the 14,075 won which are the 17th of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the date of the accident of this case, and the 5% annual amount which is the 41,013,897 won which are the 55,000 won which are the 1st of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% annual amount which is the 20% of the 1st of the judgment of this case, it shall be accepted in part of the plaintiff's appeal.

【Calculation Table of Damages Amount】

Judges Jeong Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)