A neighboring child's opening and claiming compensation for damages

If the injured party suspends his/her care for the injured party, the injured party may claim compensation for the lost interest due to the suspension of service, or may claim compensation for the amount equivalent to the cost of nursing regardless of whether the injured party actually paid the cost of nursing services.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Dong Forest Transport Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na4642 delivered on July 24, 1981

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The appeal against the remaining part of the plaintiff is dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissed portion shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s appeal against the claim of consolation money:

As the purport of the appeal, the Plaintiff sought the reversal of the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment below, but did not submit the appellate brief on the part against which the claim for consolation money was rejected. Therefore, this part of the appeal shall not be dismissed in accordance with Article 399

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below asserted that the plaintiff claimed for the expenses for nursing since the plaintiff, the father of the above plaintiff, was hospitalized for the period from June 13, 1979 to April 16, 1980 due to the accident in which the non-party (the co-Plaintiff of the original court), was hospitalized for the period from June 13, 1979 to April 16, 1980. However, the above plaintiff's opening was merely for nursing the above non-party, who is his/her father, and it cannot be deemed that the expenses for nursing were separately paid for the above non-party's opening. Thus, the above part of the claim is dismissed on the ground that

However, according to the records, if the plaintiff did not claim nursing expenses in this case, and the plaintiff did not work for the above non-party, who is his father during the above period, and was unable to work for the above period, it can be argued that he suffered losses equivalent to the amount of daily wages for male who could have earned during the above period, and that he sought compensation as his damage. Meanwhile, the above non-party requires nursing during the above period of time due to the injury incurred by the accident in this case, his father, and the plaintiff was in his father, and therefore, he did not work for the nursing, so long as the plaintiff was in a substantial relation with the harmful act, the plaintiff's lost profits can be claimed for compensation without examining the plaintiff's assertion, and even if the plaintiff did not seek compensation as to the non-party's opening of the court below, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's claim for compensation for the non-party's opening of the court below's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's damages.

3. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff is reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal against the claim for consolation money is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)