Of the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the principal lawsuit and counterclaim of the lower judgment, KRW 59,020,865 and its related thereto.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) was not negligent, determination of the fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence or liability limitation grounds in cases of damages due to nonperformance or tort is a fact-finding authority, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11954 Decided February 28, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Da249557 Decided June 8, 2017, etc.). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s finding of facts or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence or the limitation of liability is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on comparative negligence or limitation of liability.

2. As to the assertion regarding calculation of the amount equivalent to lump-sum disability compensation benefits to be deducted from damages

A. Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act (hereinafter “Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act”) provides that “If a beneficiary receives insurance benefits under this Act for the same cause, the policyholder shall be exempt from liability for damages under the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes within the limit of such amount,” and the latter part of the same Article provides that “In such cases, a person who is receiving the disability compensation annuity or survivors’ compensation annuity shall be deemed to have received the lump-sum disability compensation

As such, the latter part of Article 80(2) of the Industrial Accident Insurance Act regulates the interests and responsibilities of the re-employed workers and employers by limiting the scope of the deduction to the amount equivalent to lump-sum disability compensation benefits instead of the disability compensation annuity whose payment has not yet been realized.

(See Constitutional Court Order 2004HunBa97 delivered on November 24, 2005). Also, the distinction between a disability compensation annuity and a lump-sum disability compensation benefit is merely based on the difference in the payment method of disability benefits.