beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: (a) the part of “the doctrine of lawsuit” of the first instance judgment No. 10 is used as follows; and (b) the Defendant’s assertion related to Article 765 of the Civil Act is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for further determination under paragraph (3) below; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. The part of the complaint "Ma. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 82,729,945 won (i.e., 81,611,949 1,117,96 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from February 14, 2017 to November 22, 2018, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation to perform the contract from February 14, 2017 on the record that the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff is served on the defendant after the fire of this case occurred.
3. Additional determination
A. Considering that the fire in this case’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion is not caused by the Defendant’s intentional or gross negligence, and that economic circumstances are difficult, such as the Defendant already paying damages of KRW 25 million to H, a lessor of the Defendant restaurant, etc., the Defendant’s compensation should be reduced by Article 765 of the Civil Act.
B. Article 765 of the Civil Act provides that a person liable to compensate for damages due to a tort under the Civil Act shall not be intentional or gross negligence, but a person liable to compensate for damages may file a claim for reduction of the amount of compensation with the court in case the person liable to compensate for damages has a significant impact on his livelihood. Therefore, if the person liable to compensate for damages intends to have the amount of compensation reduced, the person liable to compensate for the damages shall
(See Supreme Court Decision 62Da428 delivered on September 20, 1962). This is the case.