1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

《추가판단》 원고는, ‘피고가 직접 시험성적서를 위조하여 해당 부품을 납품하는 등 고의로 불법행위를 저지른 부분에 대해서는 과실상계 내지 책임제한을 하여서는 아니 된다. 피고의 직원 D가 시험성적서를 위조하여 해당 부품을 납품한 불법행위와 관련하여서도 피고의 지시 내지는 묵인 하에 이루어진 것이다. 설령 피고가 이에 대하여 고의에 의한 불법행위책임을 부담하지 아니하고 사용자책임을 부담한다 하더라도 D의 고의의 불법행위로 인한 이익을 피고로 하여금 최종적으로 보유하게 하는 것으로서 이 부분 역시 과실상계 내지 책임제한을 하여서는 아니 된다.’라고 주장한다.

However, it is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim's care to claim a reduction of his/her responsibility on the ground of the victim's care. This is because, in cases where such intentional tort constitutes an acquisition act, if such intentional tort is recognized as a limitation of liability such as offsetting negligence, it would cause the perpetrator to ultimately possess profits arising from the tort and bring about a result contrary to the principles of equity or good faith. Thus, even in cases of intentional tort, if such result is not caused, it is possible to limit liability based on the principle of comparative negligence or the principle of fairness.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16758, Oct. 25, 2007). Examining the factual background and circumstances based on the Defendant’s judgment limiting the amount of damages in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the share of damages is fair.