beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is all reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. According to the records as to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s grounds of appeal [the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) filed an appeal only against the remaining parts except for BO, BU, BV, BW, X, and BY], the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) withdrawn the assertion that the purchase price of the instant subordinated claim constituted damages as lost profits by multiplying the fixed deposit interest rate by the amount of the purchase price of the instant subordinated claim, among the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s assertion on February 26, 2014, as stated on the fourth date of pleading in the lower judgment, through the preparatory documents as of February 26, 2014.
Therefore, it is just that the court below did not decide on the claim of the plaintiff (appointed party) as to the amount equivalent to the interest on the fixed deposit as above, and there is no error of law such as omitting the judgment on the special damage of the amount equivalent to the interest on the fixed deposit or the lost profit, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in
2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. In cases where a victim was negligent in causing or expanding damage caused by a tort, or where a ground exists to limit the tortfeasor’s liability, such fact shall be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor’s compensation. Provided, That if a harmful act is an act of acquisition of fraud, embezzlement, or breach of trust, etc., and the limitation on comparative negligence or liability is recognized, it is not exceptionally allowed to limit comparative negligence or liability only in cases where the perpetrator ultimately possesses profits arising from the tort, thereby causing a result contrary to the principles of equity or good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da1146, Sept. 26, 2013). In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages under Articles 125 and 126 of the Capital Markets Act relating to the