Cases to be viewed as the purport of the Defendant’s assertion of comparative negligence

If the victim has caused the perpetrator to commit a tort by insulting the perpetrator or making a speech or behavior that may stimulate the appraisal, the victim shall also be negligent.

Article 396 of the Civil Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 66Na132 delivered on August 27, 1966

Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendant is reversed;

The case concerning that part shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The defendant's first ground for appeal is examined.

In comparison with the original judgment with records, there is no error of law in the evidence preparation and fact-finding in the original judgment, and there is no error of law in the facts-finding.

The second point is examined for the same reason.

In the case of injury inflicted on other persons, the victim’s insults the perpetrator or makes a speech and behavior to stimulate the appraisal, which would be negligent on the part of the victim, and the liability for damages and its amount should be taken into account. According to the first instance court’s written reply (record 13) written by the defendant on February 1, 1966 at the date of the first instance court’s pleading, the plaintiff’s injury was committed by the defendant as the act of the plaintiff’s act of the first instance court (record 13). Thus, the plaintiff’s assertion that it was not responsible for the defendant, and it can be deemed that the argument includes the assertion of comparative negligence, and according to the evidence No. 1 (certified Copy of Summary Order) No. 1 (Certified Copy of Summary Order) where the original judgment is not rejected, the plaintiff used a insulting speech and behavior to the defendant and caused the defendant’s tort, but the original judgment did not make any judgment on the defendant’s present argument, which did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no error in the misapprehension of judgment.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges for more than one reason.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu