The court's duty to explain legal matters;

Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60207 Decided March 11, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 565) Supreme Court Decision 2007Da51703 Decided January 15, 2009

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hong-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Haok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Na91717 decided May 21, 2009

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a party asserts any legal effect and lacks close and omitted part of the requisite facts, the court shall point out the omitted facts, and where the party has a duty to provide the party with an opportunity to present his/her opinion by clarifying what the purport of the party’s refusal to present this issue is, and where it is evident that the party fails to prove due to negligence or misunderstanding or where there is no explicit dispute between the parties as to the matter to be at issue, the court shall demand explanation and urge him/her to present evidence. If the court intends to determine the propriety of a claim on the ground of the legal point of view that the party was not aware of or did not have anticipated, it shall give the party an opportunity to state his/her opinion regarding the legal point of view, and if the court intends to determine the propriety of the claim on the ground that there was a legal point of view that the party was not aware of or did not have anticipated, it shall not be deemed that the party committed an unlawful act which failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations by failing to perform its duty of explanation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da6027, Mar. 111, 2009).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant 1's non-party 1's claim against the above non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

According to the records, the first instance court's order was issued to the plaintiff that the plaintiff would have obtained joint exemption from liability by paying not less than the portion of the plaintiff 5's apportionment to the victims (hereinafter "the issue of this case"), but it could be known that the plaintiff did not make any assertion or proof as to the issue of this case, as well as the first instance court's order until the closing of argument. However, according to the records, the first instance court rejected the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants on the ground that there was no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was liable for damages caused by the accident of this case to the victims (the judgment in favor of the plaintiff 2) and that the plaintiff did not have any assertion or proof as to the issue of this case. Accordingly, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants on the ground that the plaintiff did not have any defense or proof as to the issue of this case, and that the plaintiff did not have any defense or proof as to the issue of this case's dismissal of the first instance court's order, and therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case's allegation or explanation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)