[Defendant-Appellee] Dogsan District Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

August 20, 2015

Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Kahap568 (main office), 2014Gahap329 (Counterclaim) Decided January 22, 2015

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. On June 2, 2011, in relation to the accident that occurred at the factory of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) located in Namwon-si ( Address omitted), it is confirmed that the obligation to pay damages to the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) does not exceed the amount described in the following B.

B. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 30,214,802 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and 5% per annum from June 2, 2011 to November 19, 2015, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

C. All of the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant’s remainder of the main claim and the remainder of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s remainder are dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for 20% of the total cost of the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for 80% of the total cost of the lawsuit.

3. The above paragraph 1(b) may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

(a) Main claim;

On June 2, 2011, with respect to an accident that occurred at the factory of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) located in the Nam-si ( Address omitted), Namwon-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability to pay damages to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) does not exist in excess of KRW 10,00,000.

(b) Counterclaim;

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 262,276,876 won and the amount calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum from June 2, 2011 to the service date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Defendant’s note 1) Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. With regard to the above 1. A incident, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant for damages shall be KRW 262,276,876, and that the amount shall not exceed 5% per annum from June 2, 2011 to the service date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, and that the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment shall not exceed the amount. The same shall apply to the counterclaim of this case.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, except for the second instance court's explanation of "3. Scope of compensation for damages" among the reasons for the first instance court's decision. Thus, the court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Re-use portion - Scope of compensation for damage.

The calculation of the period for the convenience of the calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and the number of days less than a monthly unit and the amount less than a won shall be discarded, respectively, and the calculation of the present value at the time of the accident in this case shall be made by the method of the fractional interest deduction calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month.

(a) Actual income:

(i) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

(a) Gender: Male;

(b) Date of birth: (Date of birth omitted)

(c) Name of lease: 35.33 years;

D) Maximum working age: 214 months from June 2, 201, which is the date of occurrence of an accident, until April 9, 2029, when the defendant reaches 60 years of age.

(e) Income: 2,200,000 won per month;

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, substantial facts in this court

(f)the ratio of injury to the latter and labor capacity;

(i)Ad hoc and impairment;

- In recognition of the loss of labor ability of 23% due to the limitation on the sports at the left-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-on-hand-hand-hand-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim-sim

○ To recognize the loss of 21% by falling under Section - Section Ⅱ - F due to the restriction on the sports by left-hand side (10° 80· 80·) on the Mabrid disability assessment table - Section - the loss of labor capacity of 21%.

○ Recognition of the loss of labor ability by falling under Section - Section - Section - Section - Section - Section - Section - Section - Section - Section 9 per cent due to falling under Section 1 of the right-hand high-speed movement (0° 00· 90· the remainder under normal circumstances)

- In the left-hand top-hand top-hand class restrictions (0·80· 80· 20· 5· 5° 20· 20· 20· 20° 1) on the clobal disability assessment table to recognize the loss of labor capacity of 9% by falling under Class A-1.

Shebly disability: According to the result of the physical examination entrusted by the court of first instance to the head of the Cheongnam University Hospital, 50% disability rate is recognized based on the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act for the defendant's abstract disability. However, the above provision of the State Compensation Act recognizes the labor disability rate of 20% due to the abstract disability in comprehensive consideration of the fact that the disability rate is somewhat excessive in a mutually advantageous and mutually advantageous sense, the specific parts, degree and scope in the drilling, the defendant's age, etc.

Consolidated disability rate: 59.69% (round 3 diversary)

[Ground of recognition] The following grounds: (a) Party B’s physical examination of the evidence Nos. 10-1 through 3; (b) the court of first instance on the ○○ University Head of △△△ Hospital; and (c) the overall purport of the argument

(b) Calculation of lost income: 185,248,595 won;

The monthly income loss rate of 1 m1 m2 m2 m1-2 m2 m1-2 applied m1-2 on June 16, 2012. 9.2,200,00 59.69.69 2145 11.6858 202 141.0687 185,248,595 on June 14, 202 on June 16, 2012

(b) Daily retirement allowance;

1) Facts of recognition

A) Entrance date: November 22, 2002

B) The retirement date: April 9, 2029

(c) The number of years of continuous service upon retirement: 26 years and 4 months;

D) The year of continuous service at the time of the instant accident: 8 years and 6 months;

(e) Monthly average wages: 2,200,000 won;

(f) Retirement allowances received previously: 22,892,866 won;

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 10-1, and substantial facts to this court

2) Calculation of actual retirement allowances

A) Retirement allowance at retirement age: 57,933,333 won (=year number of continuous service years ¡¿ monthly average wage)

(b) The current price of retirement allowances: 30,625,550 won;

(c) Retirement allowances received previously: 22,892,866 won;

(d) The rate of loss of labor ability upon retirement: 59.69%;

(e) Daily retirement allowance: 4,615,639 won [(30,625,550 won - 22,892,866 won] x 59.69%];

(c) Expenses for medical treatment: 2,573,041 won;

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's entry in the evidence 9-1 to 7

D. Limitation on liability

1) The Plaintiff’s liability ratio: 80%

2) Defendant’s property damage: 153,949,820 won [the actual income of KRW 185,248,595 + (the retirement allowance of KRW 4,615,639 + the treatment expenses of KRW 2,573,041 + 80%)

(e) Mutual aid;

1. Disability benefits: 66,79,859 won [number of days falling under class 6 of the disability grade among the criteria for calculating lump-sum disability compensation benefits as set forth in the disability benefit table] = 90,637.53 won (the average wage of the defendant recognized as a result of a fact-finding inquiry inquiry report to the branch office of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, which is this court) x 737 days (Article 80 (2), and Article 57 (2) and attached Table 2

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, after the date of the instant accident, the Defendant received a total of KRW 42,527,280 from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation until August 11, 2015, and is expected to receive a disability pension of KRW 1,238,710 every month in the future, the Defendant should deduct the total amount of the disability pension already paid or to be paid to the title of lease in the future from the amount of damages.

A person who receives a disability compensation annuity under Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act shall be deemed to have received the lump-sum disability compensation benefits. Thus, it is necessary to calculate the lump-sum disability compensation benefits to the defendant in accordance with the above Act and deduct them from the amount of damages. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is with merit

2) Compensation for damage: 26,571,795 won (the amount deemed to have been paid to the Defendant as salary, hospital expenses, medicine expenses, nursing expenses, etc. from June 2, 2011 to June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff received medical care from June 2, 2011, the date of the occurrence of the instant accident, based on the statement under subparagraph 5-1 of the evidence A)

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant should not be deducted because it is a mutually beneficial benefit to the defendant regardless of the occurrence of the plaintiff's liability for damages caused by the accident of this case, but it is difficult to view that the above money was paid regardless of the plaintiff's liability for damages in light of the name and amount of payment the above money paid.

3) Repayment: 60,363,364 won (the amount which is recognized as having been paid to the defendant as damages for the first time in the trial by the entry of evidence Nos. 11-2 and 3)

4) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should deduct temporary layoff benefits paid by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation, but since the defendant seeks a lost income after the considerable date of the payment period of temporary layoff benefits in this case, the defendant's paid temporary layoff benefits shall not be deducted (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da11776 delivered on July 23, 191, etc.).

5) Total amount of deduction: 153,735,018 won (=6,79,859 won + 26,571,795 won + 60,363,364 won)

(f) consolation money;

It is reasonable to determine 30,000,000 won in consideration of the location and circumstances of the instant accident, the injury suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident, the injury level and degree thereof, the mental suffering suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings of the instant case.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the damages amounting to KRW 30,214,802 (=property damage amounting to KRW 153,949,820 - Mutual Aid KRW 153,735,018 + solatium amounting to KRW 30,00,000), which is the date of the instant accident, to dispute about the existence and scope of the Plaintiff’s performance obligation from June 2, 201 to November 19, 2015, which is the date of the instant judgment, 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. In relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant does not exist in excess of the above amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim are justified within the scope of each recognition, and the remaining principal lawsuit and the counterclaim are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as per Disposition.

Judges 2-2 (Presiding Judge)

1) The defendant stated in the petition of appeal that only the part against the defendant among the part against the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant, but the part against the defendant among the part against the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be deemed to have been appealed, and the purport of the defendant's appeal shall