beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is modified as follows.
The defendant shall be co-defendants in the first instance trial.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the 11st court's 7th court's decision is followed by the second court's decision.
In addition, the same content as described in the paragraph shall be added, from the 9th to the 11st end, the following 2-B:
It is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for changing the same as the entry in the claim, changing the 13th amount of damages calculation table into the annexed table of damages calculation, changing “Defendant C” into “Codefendant C of the first instance trial,” and applying “Defendant Spller Codefendant Codefendant, Ltd., Ltd.” to “Spller Codefendant Codefendant, Ltd. of the first instance trial,” and citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional and modified parts
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, in light of the fact that the instant accident occurred while the co-defendant C was taking care of the deceased even if the deceased’s negligence was not recognized, the above C and the deceased shared the operation control and operation profit, and thus, the liability should be limited in consideration of such circumstances.
In light of the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, the amount of compensation can be reduced in cases where a person who participated in the service without any consideration as an operator of a vehicle was provided with the same for the convenience and interest of the passengers on board without any consideration, and even the passenger was provided for his/her own convenience and interest, if it is deemed that it is very unreasonable for the perpetrator to assume the same responsibility as a general traffic accident in light of all circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, personal relations with the passenger, and the situation in which the victim was accompanied by the vehicle, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1090, Jan. 31, 1989). In cases where a person who participated in the service due to a joint tort committed by two or more persons, there are certain burdens between the joint tortfeasor and the victim.