beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. The defendant asserts to the effect that it is improper to impose damages on the defendant due to negligence of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff, on the part of the plaintiff without properly investigating and verifying whether the plaintiff is an actual worker in the course of loan, whether the plaintiff is an actual tenant, etc.
It is not permissible for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care to claim a reduction of his/her liability on the ground of the victim’s negligence. However, this is because allowing a person who has such reason to claim a offsetting of negligence against the principle of good faith. As such, it does not mean that some of the tortfeasors have such reason, and the other tortfeasors who do not have such reason cannot make a claim for offsetting of negligence.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da7768 Decided June 28, 2007, etc.). Moreover, it is not allowed for a person who intentionally committed an illegal act by taking advantage of the victim’s care to claim to reduce his/her liability on the ground of the victim’s care. If such intentional illegal act constitutes an acquisition act, if the limitation of liability such as offsetting negligence is recognized, the perpetrator would ultimately possess profits arising from the illegal act and bring about a result contrary to the principle of fair and good faith. Thus, even in cases of intentional illegal act, if the aforementioned result is not caused, the limitation of liability based on the principle of comparative negligence and fairness should be deemed possible to all extent.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 25 October 25, 2007