1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant’s attached Form to the Plaintiffs

1. Of calculation slips;

1. The reasons why the court should explain the instant case in this case by the court of the first instance are as follows: ① “1.5” of the 10th 15th 10 of the judgment of the first instance as “1/5” and “attached Table 1” of the 11th 4 to 5th 11.

1. The phrase “calculated sheet” is used, and the phrase “the scope of liability for damages of 3.3.” is as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. In calculating consolation money due to a tort determination of the amount of consolation money, consideration of the victim’s circumstances, such as the victim’s age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from the damage, degree of the victim’s fault or negligence, motive and cause of the harmful act, and attitude of the perpetrator after the illegal act, together with the circumstances on the part of the perpetrator, is consistent with the principle of fair liability for damages. The court may determine the amount of consolation money at its own discretion, taking into account such various circumstances into account.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on non-performance of a tort, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to non-performance of a tort, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to non-performance of a tort, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to non-performance of a tort, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Supreme Court Decision 2011Da38325 Decided March 29, 2012