beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the liability for damages is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Scope of liability for damages
A. Active damage treatment costs: (a) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the Plaintiff is recognized to have spent a total of KRW 322,900 (= KRW 22,900 on September 4, 2015) in order to treat the wife suffered from the instant accident (= KRW 300,000 on September 11, 2015).
B. Consolation money is clear in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the instant accident, and the Defendants are liable for compensating the Plaintiff for emotional distress. The amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff shall be determined as KRW 100,000 in consideration of the age and relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the developments leading up to the instant accident, the degree of injury suffered by the Plaintiff, and all other circumstances shown in the argument
C. In conclusion, the Defendants jointly conflict with the Plaintiff about KRW 422,90 (affirmative damages of KRW 322,90,000) and KRW 322,90,00 equivalent to the cited amount in the first instance judgment, which is the tort day, with 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from September 4, 2015 to October 27, 2017, which is the date when the first instance judgment was rendered, and with respect to KRW 10,000,00, which is additionally recognized by this court, as to the existence or scope of the Defendants’ performance obligation from September 4, 2015 to June 28, 2018, which is the date when the court rendered a substantial decision, with 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act until June 28, 2018, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit.