2017Da242973 Compensation for damages

A

Kusan Co., Ltd.

Busan District Court Decision 2015Na46741 Decided June 15, 2017

October 31, 2017

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff as to lost income damages is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division. The remaining appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to lost income

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance to limit the defendant's liability to 60%, and comprehensively based on the evidence in its judgment, recognized the plaintiff's lost income to 159,958,082 won, and found the defendant's lost income to be 63,983,232 won (=159,958,082 won x 60%) in calculating the amount of damages equivalent to the plaintiff's lost income to be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is inconsistent with its reasoning and affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to consolation money. The amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by a tort may be determined by the fact-finding court at its discretion, taking into account various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da60466, Aug. 20, 2014).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the court below was justified in calculating the amount of consolation money against the plaintiff, taking full account of the circumstances in its judgment. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding lost income damages is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim Chang-tae, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Lee Dong-won