[1] Whether it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of liability for damages in a lawsuit claiming damages against a person's life or body's tort should be determined separately by the subject matter of a lawsuit, such as active, passive, and mental damage (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that the defendant's defense cannot be viewed as reasonable from the day following the date of the first instance judgment as to consolation money and the amount maintained in the appellate court as a passive amount of damages cited by the first instance judgment, where the appellate court acknowledged the same amount of active damages among the amount of damages cited by the first instance judgment, but the consolation money is recognized as equal, and where the passive amount of damages is accepted more than the amount of damages, and the appellate court also

[1] Since active damages and passive damages and mental damages suffered by tort against life or body differ in the subject matter of a lawsuit, the existence or scope of the obligation to compensate for damages should be determined separately for each damage.

[2] The case holding that, in a claim for damages caused by a tort, even though the appellate court partially reduced the amount of active damages as cited by the judgment of the court of first instance, the consolation money is recognized as equal, and where the passive damages are accepted more, it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence or scope of the duty of performance until the judgment of the appellate court rendered as to the amount of the passive damages cited by the appellate court and the amount of the active damages reduced compared to the judgment of the court of first instance, but the appellate court determined that the plaintiff's claim was well-grounded in the judgment of the court of first instance as to consolation money and the amount of the passive damages cited by the judgment of the court of first instance and maintained in the appellate court as to the same purport as the judgment of the court of first instance, barring any special circumstances

[1] Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings / [2] Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da56234 delivered on February 17, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1420), Supreme Court Decision 96Da39080 delivered on January 24, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 636), Supreme Court Decision 98Da61951 delivered on March 23, 199 (Gong1999Sang, 741 delivered on June 8, 1999), Supreme Court Decision 98Da54571 delivered on June 23, 200, 200Da63752 delivered on February 23, 2005 (Gong201Sang, 7520) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da9285 delivered on January 25, 199 (Gong9497 delivered on April 29, 197) 97Da39794 delivered on June 29, 1997

[Judgment of the court below]

Magly Fire Insurance Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na37752 delivered on May 17, 2002

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to passive damages and damages for delay in the part of consolation money shall be reversed, and the part of the judgment below shall be modified as follows. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 6,008,059 won and 59,345,416 won from November 28, 1999 to June 14, 2001; 5% per annum from November 28, 1999 to May 17, 2002; and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. All costs of the lawsuit shall be seven minutes to the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

The court below acknowledged that the court of first instance has partially reduced the amount of active damages out of the amount admitted as damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case, but the consolation money is recognized as equal, and even though the passive amount of damages has been accepted partially and accepted, it ordered the payment of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 28, 1998, which is the date of the accident of this case, to May 17, 2002, which is the date of the judgment of the court below, until May 17, 2002, and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.

However, since active damages suffered by a tort against life or body and passive damages and mental damages differ in the subject matter of a lawsuit, it shall be determined separately for each damages whether it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the liability to compensate for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da56234, Feb. 17, 1995; 2000Da63752, Feb. 23, 2001). In this case, as to the amount additionally admitted in the court below among passive damages cited by the court below and the amount of active damages reduced than in the court of first instance, it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to compensate for damages until the date when the court of first instance renders a decision of the court of first instance. However, as to the amount of damages sustained by the court of first instance as passive damages cited by the court of first instance, as long as the court of first instance determined that the plaintiff's claim was well-grounded, it cannot be deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute this part.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, where the defendant did not apply the interest rate under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since the day after the court of first instance renders a judgment as to consolation money and the passive damages maintained by the court below

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to damages for delay is reversed, and this part is sufficient for this court to directly judge, and it is so decided as follows.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 59,345,416 won including passive losses and consolation money cited by the first instance court among the total sum of 66,008,059 won for property losses and consolation money sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case until June 14, 2001, which is the date of the first instance judgment from November 28, 1999 to the date of the first instance judgment, which is the date of the accident of this case; 5% per annum under each Civil Act from November 28, 1999 to May 17, 2002, which is the date of the original judgment; and 25% per annum under each Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's damages for delay shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and it shall be modified this part of the first instance judgment to the extent of the above recognition.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning damages for delay shall be reversed and sold, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne and decided as per Disposition.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)