logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.11.10 2014다225519
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment below, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff E, G, and F concerning the portion of the deceased OP's share of consolation money.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff A’s successor, the lower court determined that the lawsuit of this case brought by the Plaintiff A, the deceased at the time of the instant lawsuit, was unlawful from the beginning, and thus, the lawsuit acceptance by the said Plaintiff’s heir is not permissible.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

2. In a case where the State received an application for ascertaining the truth of a victim subject to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Act”), with respect to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiff AE, AF, AG, AH, AC, and AD, and where the State confirmed or presumed the victim as a victim, it is reasonable to deem that there are special circumstances where the victim or his/her bereaved family member exercises his/her right within a considerable period of time based on such determination, that the State would not claim the extinction of right by the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and thus, it is not permissible for the State to assert the expiration of the extinctive prescription against the victim as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013). Furthermore, even in cases where the Criminal Procedure Commission ex officio commenced an investigation pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act and confirmed or presumed as a victim, the State asserts ex officio ex officio ex officio the exercise of rights by the victim or his/her bereaved family.

arrow