2018Da280231 Compensation for damages

AUA

Law Firm Yangyang, Attorney Park Do-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Go Young-il, Attorney Go Young-chul, Lee Jin-ho, and Lee Jin-ho

B Stock Company

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Limited-Governing, Park Jae-sik, Park Jong-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 2017Na2052239 Decided September 14, 2018

May 28, 2020

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Even in cases where the representative’s power of representation of a juristic person has been extinguished during the litigation proceedings, the said representative authority shall be deemed not extinguished in the litigation proceedings unless the other party is notified thereof (Article 64 and Article 63(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, even if the representative director, who was the defendant’s representative, retired and was appointed by the new representative director during the proceedings of the court below, barring any circumstance where the defendant notified the plaintiff (appointed party) of the change of the representative director, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in indicating the defendant’s representative in the BTPP (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da171, Nov. 23, 200

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the ground of appeal to the effect that there is a defect in the defendant's representative authority.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

Based on the circumstances indicated in its holding, the court below rejected the claim for damages of this case by the plaintiff et al., on the ground that it was insufficient to prove that there was any intentional or negligent act to constitute a tort against call measures taken domestically against C mobile phones manufactured and sold by the defendant, and that even if the plaintiff (appointed parties and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") temporarily feel uneasiness or psychological fear before the above measures were taken, it is difficult to recognize that the above measures were mental losses that should be legally compensated. Since the above measures were taken to protect more legal interests of protecting the safety of life and body of the plaintiff et al. based on Article 13 (1) of the Framework Act on Product Safety, it is difficult to recognize that ordinary time and economic losses of the plaintiff et

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to this part of the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-hwan

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Ansan-chul et al.

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.