Scope to be deducted from the amount of damages received as medical expenses.

If the victim sought the full amount of the above 2,500,000 won, which was already received from the 4,606,000 won for the medical expenses of the king, not only sought a limitation on the remaining amount, but also sought the full amount of the above 2,500,000 won which was already received, the perpetrator shall deduct the total amount of the above 2,50,000 won, out of the amount of damages to be compensated by the perpetrator, not the amount equivalent to the percentage of the victim’s negligence, from among them.

Civil Act Article 763 (Article 393)

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Long-term meals

Law Firm Sung-tae, Attorney Choi Jong-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na60791 delivered on April 30, 1992

The part of the judgment below against the defendant regarding medical expenses shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the first and third grounds for appeal

According to the facts established by the court below, the car that caused the accident of this case is owned by the non-party 1, and the defendant received from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2,500,000 won from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2,50,000 won with the request to buy the car, and the above car was purchased from the non-party 1 to April 11, 1989 with the name of the non-party 2,50,000 won, and the above car was paid in full and delivered to the non-party 1 at the same time as the document necessary for the transfer of ownership on the day. The above car did not take over the above car without transferring the name of the vehicle to the non-party 1,50,000 won, and was to be sold to the non-party 1 to the defendant's office and to be sold to the non-party 2,500,000 won. The defendant introduced the above car to the non-party 1 to the above office and the defendant's office.

If the facts are the same, the defendant is not merely a representative of the non-party port, but it was kept for him, and the automobile of this case was under the control of the defendant's operation, and in view of the business relationship between the defendant and the non-party 1 or the friendly relationship as a neighbor, even if the non-party 1 arbitrarily driven the automobile on the defendant's office's books without the defendant's consent, it cannot be said that the defendant lost the operation control and operation profit for the above automobile. Thus, the defendant is a person who operates the automobile for himself under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Accordingly, the judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the person who operates the automobile for his own interest as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the agent, or making no error of law.

2. On the fifth ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below acknowledged the facts as to the circumstances leading up to the accident of this case based on macroficial evidence, and found that the plaintiff's negligence, which caused the expansion of damage to the accident of this case, did not fasten the plaintiff's driving vehicle of this case, the background leading up to the accident of this case, the relationship with drinking drivers, the relationship with the plaintiff's safety belt, etc., and therefore, it is reasonable that the plaintiff's negligence ratio exceeds 40%, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to comparative negligence.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

In light of the record, the court below's finding of the degree of loss of the plaintiff's labor force due to the accident of this case is acceptable, and there is no error of law in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

4. On the sixth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the amount of the plaintiff's king's medical expenses of this case as KRW 4,606,00, and the amount received from the non-party Japan Fire Maritime Co., Ltd. that the plaintiff subrogated the defendant as KRW 2,50,000, and recognized the above amount of KRW 2,500,000, which is equivalent to the ratio of the plaintiff's fault among the above amount of KRW 2,50,000, which the defendant asserted the deduction, and rejected the other claim for deduction.

However, the Plaintiff did not only seek the remainder of KRW 2,500,000 which was already received from the total amount of the damages incurred in this lawsuit, but also sought the full amount of the above KRW 2,500,000 which was already received by the Plaintiff, the Defendant would have to deduct the total amount of KRW 2,50,000 out of the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant. Therefore, the lower court should have determined the limit of the deduction by examining whether the scope of the damages incurred in the previous medical expenses claimed by the Plaintiff in this lawsuit is any case.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below, the part concerning medical expenses in the judgment below shall be deemed to have committed unlawful acts affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the scope to be deducted from the amount of damages and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding medical expenses is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)