The case holding that the court below erred by neglecting the exercise of the right to explanation that the court below rejected the claim for medical expenses on the ground that the court below did not have any evidence to prove the authenticity of the above documentary evidence without any proof and received a favorable judgment upon the adoption of the documentary evidence for the amount of the damage of the medical expenses in the first instance court.

The case holding that the court below erred in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by neglecting the exercise of the right to explanation that the court below rejected the claim for medical expenses on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the authenticity of the above documentary evidence without any proof when the documentary evidence for the amount of the damage of the medical expenses was adopted in the first instance court and the winning judgment was rendered.

Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu503,504 decided Aug. 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1206) (Gong1206) 86Meu67 decided Nov. 25, 1986 (Gong1987, 102) (Gong1990, 1577)

Attorney Cho Nam-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Supplementary Intervenor] Korea Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-Supplementary intervenor

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na32940 delivered on December 30, 1993

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The defendant assistant intervenor's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the same intervenor.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation that Nonparty 1 was completely deprived of the Defendant’s operation control, and the Defendant was not responsible for the instant accident, based on the following evidence: (a) the Defendant purchased the instant vehicle with Nonparty 2, who was his/her her her friendor, and had Nonparty 2 drive the instant vehicle for the purpose of using it in carrying out a criend retail business; (b) on the date of the instant accident, Nonparty 2 was on the said vehicle, Nonparty 1, who was on the friendor of the said vehicle while driving the said vehicle, was on the friendor of the said vehicle without correcting the vehicle’s entrance at his friendor; and (c) the friendor of the said vehicle without the consent of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, regardless of its friendor’s friendor’s friendor’s personal intent and friter’s personal interest.

2. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages for the medical expenses of the above private document on the ground that the plaintiff paid KRW 8,571,400, the sum of KRW 7,749,80, KRW 491,60, KRW 330,000 to the Hosisung Hospital and KRW 330,571,40, KRW 770,00, as the medical expenses for the treatment of the injury suffered by the accident of this case, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above private document, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge the payment of the medical expenses, each of the provisions of No. 5-1, No. 71,73,78 (each simplified tax invoice), 72, 76,77 (each statement of medical expenses) shall not be admitted as evidence, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the payment of the medical expenses.

However, the presiding judge of the fact-finding court is not obliged to urge the parties to prove the facts in dispute, unless there is any proof as a matter of dispute, even if it is not necessarily required to urge the parties to prove the facts, if it is evident that the parties fail to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu805 delivered on June 26, 190).

As long as the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff was hospitalized at the hospital from the time of the accident in this case until June 24, 191, it is evident that the damage equivalent to the medical expenses occurred to the plaintiff during the above hospitalization period. Meanwhile, according to the records, the plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 5-2, 73, 78, 72 (each simplified tax invoice), 76, and 77 (each statement of medical expenses) as evidence to prove the payment of the above medical expenses, and the court of first instance recognized the establishment by free evaluation in consideration of the purport of the pleading and obtained a favorable judgment citing the claim for damages for the above medical expenses, it seems that there is no need to further prove the establishment of the above private documents and without proof. In such a case, the court below should have urged the plaintiff to prove the establishment of the medical expenses in this case prior to rejection of such documentary evidence. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the plaintiff's right to request compensation for damages due to lack of evidence to prove the above facts.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal by the defendant assistant intervenor is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)