2015Da220030 Damage (as such)

A

B

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na28700 Decided May 1, 2015

October 15, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below regarding future treatment costs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. The remaining appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the necessity of future medical treatment due to the instant tort, and that the Plaintiff did not receive the medical treatment until the closing date of argument in the court below.

2. In a case where an affirmative damage occurred due to a tort, the amount of compensation shall be the actual amount of damage, and if the expected amount of damage has already been spent during the expected period prior to the closure of the arguments at a fact-finding court, the actual amount of damage shall not be deemed the amount of damage. However, even if the expected amount of medical expenses has not been spent by the time the arguments at the fact-finding court were concluded, if the expected medical expenses are obviously expected to be spent in the future, the perpetrator is liable to compensate for such damage. Therefore, the fact-finding court as a fact-finding court should calculate the future medical expenses by considering such expenses as at the time of the closure of arguments (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1441, Apr. 1

3. According to the records, it is difficult to fully recognize the fact that the injury suffered by the plaintiff of the tort of this case requires the future treatment of co-malopic surgery and scalopic surgery, and that there is a possibility of co-malopic transformation and scalopic scalopic remaining after the surgery. In light of the content and degree of injury suffered by the tort of this case, it is difficult to view that medical treatment is necessary even after the closing of argument in the court below and its cost

Therefore, the lower court should have determined the validity of the Plaintiff’s future claim for medical expenses by examining whether future medical treatment is required and whether the medical expenses would be required. Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for medical expenses on the ground that only the evidence submitted without adopting the physical examination commission requested by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the necessity of future medical treatment. In so doing, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules.

4. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff stated that the appeal was filed against the entire judgment of the court below, but there is no indication in the grounds of appeal as well as in the petition of appeal as to the remainder other than future treatment costs.

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding future treatment costs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Park Young-young

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Jong-il