time when an appeal may be filed

The time when an appeal may be filed in the final appeal is until the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief.

Articles 395 and 372 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da825 Decided September 17, 1968 Supreme Court Decision 68Da882 Decided July 8, 1969

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

New Taxi Stock Company

Daegu High Court Decision 79Na781 delivered on February 22, 1980

1. The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

2. The plaintiff 1's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the plaintiff 1.

3. The defendant's dismissal of the incidental appeal, and the incidental appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. The plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. First, we examine the part of Plaintiff 2.

The court below rejected the above claim on the ground that, as the mother of the Plaintiff 1, who was the victim of this case, the plaintiff 2 suffered losses from income equivalent to the wages of daily work in rural communities during the period from July 17, 1976 to June 17, 1978 when the plaintiff 1 was hospitalized in the hospital, due to the pelvis and pelpelel, etc. on the part of the crime committed by the plaintiff 1 as the mother of the victim of this case, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above claim with the testimony of the non-party 1 by the witness of the court below, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff 2 was lost income due to the non-party 1's failure to engage in the labor that the plaintiff 1 was to care for the plaintiff 1 due to the accident of this case.

However, according to the testimony of the above witness non-party 1, while the plaintiff 1 was hospitalized in the frame above, he could not freely use his equipment, meals, urines, and urines alone, and the mother of the plaintiff 2, who is his mother, was in nursing. Although the nursing staff of the hospital has meals to the patient, there are many other things to ensure that the patient could not help the patient, so the above plaintiff 1 was in need of a separate nurse, and the fact that the plaintiff 2 was in charge of it. In addition, if there are these circumstances, the plaintiff 2 can only be said to have been able to say that there was a considerable profit and loss due to the plaintiff 2's failure to view other one's work for the period in which he had labor ability, and thus, the claim of the plaintiff 2 cannot be rejected easily.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 2 is justified in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. As to the first ground of the second part of the part of Plaintiff 1:

The court below rejected the plaintiff 1's assertion premiseding that the above business can be operated by the age of 55, which is acknowledged as the maximum working age within the scope of average remaining life in light of the empirical rule, as the victim 1 et al., in light of the fact that the person who purchased a large quantity of fruits from each of the task and supplied them to each of the unit retails, as the victim 1 of this case, can be employed in such a business by the age of 60, and it is clear that the court below rejected the non-party 2's testimony that the above business could be operated by the age of 60, and therefore, it cannot be said that the maximum working age of the business selling the Otoba and the distribution of fruit, as a matter of course, should be considered to be 60 years until the age of 60 is our empirical rule. Thus, the judgment below cannot be deemed to constitute a case where there is an unlawful cause, such as the omission of judgment or the lack of reasons.

With respect to the second ground:

In full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the collision accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff 1's movement of the defendant company's vehicle that took place in the opposite direction, and in particular, it was on the front road of the school, and therefore, he had a duty of care to reduce the speed of the Otoba, which he drives, but neglected to do so, and caused the collision accident of this case to be avoided, and determined that the accident of this case occurred due to negligence. The court below set a comparative negligence as to the amount excluding 18,00,000 won out of 35,772,302 won in consideration of the relation between the two parties, and if the evidence adopted by the court below was examined by the record, it is acceptable that the court below erred by the judgment below that the plaintiff 1 was the above negligence, and the judgment below determined the amount of compensation by taking into account the relation between the two parties in this case, and therefore, it cannot be said to have erred by violating the rules of evidence or by comparing the degree of negligence.

2. The defendant's appeal against the defendant is examined.

Article 372 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that Article 372 of the same Act as to the appellate procedure shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the court of final appeal under Article 395 of the same Act, so the defendant who is an appellee may make an incidental appeal even after the right to appeal is extinguished. However, in light of the difference between the structure of the procedure of the appellate court and the court of final appeal and the difference between the structure of the appellate court and the court of final appeal and the fact that the court of final appeal is prohibited from receiving the notice of delivery of the petition of final appeal and the receipt of the records of trial, it is reasonable to deem that the time when the appeal can be filed is the expiration of the period for submitting the appellate brief corresponding to the time when the appellate court closed its arguments in the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Da82

However, in the instant case, it is evident that the Defendant received the notice of acceptance of the records of the appeal on May 3, 1980 and filed the incidental appeal of this case only on June 5, 1980 when the appellate brief was not timely filed. Thus, the incidental appeal of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Plaintiff 2 shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for this part of this case. The appeal by Plaintiff 1 shall be dismissed and the costs of the appeal shall be assessed against Plaintiff 1. The defendant's incidental appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the part of the defendant.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)