logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대법원 1991. 12. 10. 선고 91다33193 판결
[손해배상(자)][공1992.2.1.(913),492]
Main Issues

A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there were errors in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the burden of proof as to the existence of causation in determining the causal relationship between the victim's 5th place of pre-explosion and the traffic accident that the defendant alleged as congenital type of congenital type of punishment

(b) The case affirming the judgment below's measures calculated on the basis of the income of college graduates who have been enrolled in the three-year course of the livestock industry at universities or colleges at the time of accidents based on the occupational wage status survey report published by the Ministry of Labor.

Summary of Judgment

A. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the burden of proof on the existence of a causal relationship between the tort and the occurrence of damage should, in principle, be deemed to exist in the victim, but the burden of proof on the premise that there is no causal relationship between the victim's 5th Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal

B. The case affirming the court below's measures that calculated the lost income on the basis of this, on the ground that a male who left 25 years of age and nine months of age at the time of the accident had attended the livestock industry of a university and graduated from the above university, could have obtained the income equivalent to the income of college graduates from the 20 to 24 years of age in the report on the survey of actual wage status by occupation published by the Ministry of Labor, in calculating the lost income for the victims who have graduated from the above university.

[Reference Provisions]

(a) Articles 750, 261, and 183(b) of the Civil Act (Article 393);

Reference Cases

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da2713,2714 decided Aug. 11, 1981 (Gong1981, 14260) (Gong1991, 1614) decided May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1614) 91Da36116 decided Dec. 10, 1991 (Gong192,495)

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na6827 delivered on August 22, 1991

Text

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

The case is remanded to the Seoul High Court on this part.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

In full view of the whole purport of the argument as a result of the physical examination of the first instance court head of the Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synive Synives, the court below acknowledged that the Plaintiff suffered injury due to the accident in the instant case, but still became unable to improve the number of Gynives and Synives, etc., and lost 32% of his labor ability as university graduates. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s 5th of the above 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 19.

However, the purport of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s 5th Twit-Bal was a congenital type certificate that does not relate to the instant accident is nothing more than denying the causal relationship between the instant traffic accident and the Plaintiff’s 5th Twit-Bal, whereas the burden of proving the existence of causal relationship between tort and damage should, in principle, be deemed to exist in the Plaintiff who is the victim. However, the lower court held that the Plaintiff had the burden of proving that there was no causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s 5th Twit-Bal and the instant accident. Thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the burden of proof.

In addition, the examination of the relevant evidence by comparing it with the records, and as to whether the current military register evidence of the plaintiff was caused by the accident in this case, the physical appraisal report of the non-party prepared by the court below stating the result of the physical appraisal commission adopted by the court below is shown only as "the above symptoms had not existed before the accident in the above date." The above 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 122 5 5 6 - 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 10 6 6 5 14 5 5 5 10.

Therefore, the court below should have carefully deliberated and determined whether the Plaintiff’s symptoms appeared or aggravated due to the instant accident, by examining the appraiser who appraised the Plaintiff’s body as a witness, or the doctor who treated the Plaintiff, or by entrusting the relevant examination or necessary investigation to the relevant public hospital affiliated with the Sejong Synas Hospital or the relevant public university. In addition, whether the Plaintiff’s symptoms occurred due to the instant accident, as well as whether the Plaintiff’s symptoms appeared or aggravated due to the instant accident.

Ultimately, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof of causation between tort and the occurrence of damage, and it is clear that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

On February 11, 1990, the court below recognized that the plaintiff was a male who was 25 years old and 9 years old at the time when the accident in this case occurred and was 3 years old and enrolled in the livestock industry of the National University at the National University at the Livestock Industry at the National University on February 23, 191, but graduated from the above university on February 23, 1991. However, the court below calculated the plaintiff's actual profit on the basis that the plaintiff was able to obtain the income corresponding to the graduates of the university at least 20 years old and 24 years old and less than 1 year in the report on the fact-finding survey of wages by occupation in the year 1989 published by the Ministry of Labor without the accident in this case. According to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles like the theory of the lawsuit in the judgment below, and there is no ground

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)

따름판례

- 대법원 1991. 12. 10. 선고 91다36116 판결 [공1992.2.1.(913),495]

- 대법원 1994. 9. 30. 선고 93다37885 판결 [공1994.11.1.(979),2826]

- 대법원 1999. 5. 11. 선고 99다2171 판결 [공1999.6.15.(84),1135]

- 대법원 2002. 9. 4. 선고 2001다80778 판결 [공2002.10.15.(164),2321]

관련문헌

- 서울중앙지방법원 손해배상소송실무:. (교통·산재) 사법발전재단 2017

- 남근욱 손해배상청구소송에 있어서의 기왕병 참작 재판과 판례 9집 / 대구판례연구회 2000

- 최진수 기왕증등 피해자의 소인에 따른 책임 제한에 관하여 실무논단 , 1997 1998 / 서울지방법원 1998

- 민유숙 조정에 갈음하는 결정(조서)에 대한 준재심사유 대법원판례해설 54호 (2006.01) / 법원도서관 2006

- 김선중 새로운 심리방식에 따른 의료과오소송의 심리와 실무상 제문제 재판자료 97집 (하) / 법원도서관 2002

- 한삼인 일실이익 산정의 판례분석 민사법학 18호 / 한국사법행정학회 2000

- 박세민 자동차보험 대인배상 Ⅰ의 법률적 논점에 대한 소고 법학연구 12권 / 충북대학교 2001

- 한국. 대법원 법원행정처 재판실무편람 제21호: 손해배상재판실무편람 법원행정처 2008

- 양인평 척추손상과 신체감정 인권과 정의 199호 / 대한변호사협회 1993

- 사법연수원 손해배상소송: 2016 사법연수원 2016

- 박은경 교통사고 환자의 기왕증과 보험자의 보상책임 법학연구 제48집 / 한국법학회 2012

- 남영찬 노동능력상실율에 관하여 실무논단 , 1997 1997 / 서울지방법원 1997

- 고경우 기왕의 장해를 기왕증으로서 그 기여도를 참작할 것인지 여부 판례연구 12집 / 부산판례연구회 2001

- 배현모 복합부위통증증후군(CRPS)에 관한 법적 문제 고찰 : 손해배상소송의 쟁점을 중심으로 의료법학 11권 1호 / 대한의료법학회 2010

- 이인영 자동차사고에서의 기왕증진료비에 관한 고찰 한국의료법학회지 11권 2호 / 한국의료법학회 2003

- 이동연 손해배상에서의 기왕증에 따른 책임제한 실무연구자료 4권 / 대전지방법원 2000

- 김선중 의료과오소송의 심리방식과 실무상 제문제 : 새로운 민사사건관리방식에 따른 서울지방법원의 실무를 중심으로 . 사법논집 32집 / 대법원 법원행정처 2001

참조판례

- 대법원 1981.8.11. 선고 80다2713,2714 판결(공1981,14260)

- 1991.5.10. 선고 91다8067 판결(공1991,1614)

- 1991.12.10. 선고 91다36116 판결(공1992,495)

참조조문

- 민법 제750조 (위헌조문)

- 민사소송법 제261조

- 민사소송법 제183조

- 민법 제763조 (위헌조문)

- 민법 제393조 (위헌조문)

원심판결

- 서울고등법원 1991.8.22. 선고 91나6827 판결