[1] Whether the determination of the amount of consolation money for mental suffering suffered by a tort is a discretionary matter under the authority of the fact-finding court (affirmative)

[2] Where one of the joint tortfeasor compensates for part of consolation money, the method of calculating consolation money of the other joint tortfeasor

[1] The amount of consolation money for mental suffering suffered by tort can be determined by the fact-finding court at its discretion in consideration of all the circumstances.

[2] In case where the perpetrator paid consolation money to the victim as a part of consolation money, the court may take these circumstances into account in calculating consolation money, and this legal principle also applies to the case where one of the joint tortfeasor who is liable for the whole amount of damages under Article 760 of the Civil Code pays consolation money to the victim.

[1] Articles 393, 751, and 763 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 751 and 760 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Da41377 decided Apr. 23, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 998) Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165 decided Nov. 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 211), Supreme Court Decision 99Da24218 decided Jul. 11, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1695) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Da344999 decided Nov. 26, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 37)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Kim Tae-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Blst, Attorneys Park Jong-hae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Na84776 delivered on October 26, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principle as to the calculation of damages

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts based on the evidence adopted by the court below, and judged that since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that Defendant 1 sustained a considerable mental pain due to Defendant 1’s participation in the Nonparty’s unlawful act against the Plaintiff, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, and continuously conspired with Defendant 1 on several occasions, Defendant 1 has a duty to pay compensation for mental pain incurred by the Plaintiff. The court below determined that the amount of consolation money should be determined as KRW 20 million,00,000,000, when considering all circumstances revealed during the pleadings of this case, such as the Plaintiff, Nonparty, and Defendant 1’s educational background, age, and property relationship between the Plaintiff and Nonparty, the marriage period between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, and the circumstances leading to the failure of the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, which led to the failure of the marriage between the Nonparty and the latter, and there was a confusion between Defendant 1 and the Nonparty.

With respect to the amount of consolation money for mental suffering caused by tort, a fact-finding court may determine it at its own discretion, taking into account all the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43165, Nov. 26, 2002, etc.). In cases where the perpetrator paid consolation money to the victim as a part of consolation money, the court may take these circumstances into account in calculating consolation money (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da34499, Nov. 26, 199, etc.). This legal principle applies to cases where one of the joint tortfeasor who is liable for all damages under Article 760 of the Civil Act pays consolation money to the victim.

In light of the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below is just to determine the amount of consolation money of this case considering the fact that the non-party, who is a joint tortfeasor, paid consolation money to the plaintiff, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cause of damages and calculation of consolation money in tort damages.

2. Legal principles concerning the validity of the disposal document and whether it violates the rules of evidence

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 on the ground that the defendant 2 et al. prepared a letter of judgment in the sense that the defendant 1 was able to assume an intentional liability as the father of the defendant 1, and it cannot be deemed that the above defendant guaranteed the defendant 1's obligation to compensate for damages, or that he independently agreed on the supervision over the above defendant who is his father who is over 35 years old as an adult, and that the defendant 2 was engaged in the non-party and personnel affairs who was found in the family slopes of his family.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and it is not acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of a disposition document, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal, such as erroneous admission of facts against the rules of evidence

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)