2017Da213999 Damage compensation

A

Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Corporation

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Na5466 Decided February 2, 2017

June 15, 2017

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding lost earnings and anesthesia pain medicine 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. Regarding comparative negligence, determination of the fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case is within the discretionary authority of the fact-finding court, unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da17267, Jul. 7, 1995).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for offsetting negligence is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, and thus, there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence or misconception of facts, as alleged in

2. Regarding the scope of damages

A. As to property damage

1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) calculating damages from lost earnings of the Plaintiff, deeming the Plaintiff’s maximum working age as 60 years in light of the Plaintiff’s annual wage survey report; (b) calculating the daily income based on the Plaintiff’s daily wage; and (c) cannot be deemed to have lost the Plaintiff’s entire labor ability in light of the Plaintiff’s injury portion and degree, treatment progress, etc. from April 6, 2010 when the Plaintiff was discharged after performing a climatic surgery; and (d) deeming that the Plaintiff’s climatic disorder overlaps with anesthesia pain surgery, the lower court recognized the rate of loss of labor capacity of 21.68% due to anesthesia pain surgery and mental health disorder; and (b) in calculating other property damages of the Plaintiff, the lower court did not reflect it in the future on the grounds that the expected period had already elapsed at the time of closing argument in the lower court, and rejected all of the Plaintiff’s allegation in the grounds of appeal, such as misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of evidence.

2) Meanwhile, based on the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the lower court found that the Plaintiff’s date of birth was M and calculated the Plaintiff’s actual income loss until January 24, 2014 until he/she reaches 60 years of age, as well as the medical expenses incurred in the course of anesthesia pain medicine and future medical treatment until June 10, 203, respectively.

The court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in calculating the cost of medical treatment in the course of daily income and anesthesia, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

B. Regarding consolation money

The amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by a tort may be determined at the discretion of the fact-finding court, taking into account various circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da60466, Aug. 20, 2014).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's determination of the amount of consolation money against the plaintiff is just, and there is no error such as deviating from the discretionary range on the calculation of consolation money, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff regarding lost earnings and anesthesia pain medicine is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jong-hee

A person shall be appointed.