2018Na205369 Insurance proceeds

1. A;

2. B

3. C

Plaintiff 2 and 3 are minors, so the legal representative mother A

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Stock companies D;

Law Firm Man-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

2. E stock companies:

Law Firm Man-N et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

3. Fran Stock Company;

Law Firm Vindication, Attorney Park Jae-soo

Park Jong-min, Attorney Park Jong-young, and Justice Park Jong-chul

4. G stock company.

Attorney Park Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

5. H stock company;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant]

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gahap510180 Decided August 31, 2018

August 13, 2019

October 8, 2019

1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim

Defendant D Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff A 51,428,571, and each of the above amounts to KRW 34,285,714 and KRW 15% per annum from April 23, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case; and Defendant E Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff A 51,428,571, and KRW 34,285,714, and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff C Co., Ltd., Ltd. with 6% per annum from April 23, 2017 to the 15th day of the payment; KRW 15% per annum from the 27th day of the payment; KRW 275 to the 27th day of the payment; and KRW 15% per annum from the 27th day of the payment to the 25th day of the payment; and Defendant E Co., Ltd. shall pay to Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. 1, 2017 to each of these amounts.

Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants corresponding to the revocation part are dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and this Court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the court’s decision as to the Defendants’ assertion as the grounds for appeal under Paragraph 2. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited under the main sentence of

○○ The 12th 7th 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth e.g.

2. The further determination by this Court 1)

A. The defendants' assertion

According to the court's entrustment of appraisal to O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the appraisal report of this case"), when considering the deceased's age (30 years of age) and kidne (171cm), the deceased's physical weight-centered of the deceased's body weight is about 94 cm from the floor of the launch, and even if the deceased loaded the body outside of about 112 cm at a height of about 112 cm from the floor of the windows located above a about 40 cm and sealed the body outside of the window 112 cm from the floor of the deceased, there is no possibility that the deceased might fall down with a rail machine by negligence, so long as the rail was located above approximately 18 cm (12 cm - 94 cm) than the center of the deceased's weight. Accordingly, there is no reasonable doubt about the deceased's intentional fall from a rail rail.

B. Determination

According to the appraisal report of this case, the appraiser determined that there is no possibility that the deceased might fall down with a rail machine by negligence (see, e.g., the appraisal report of this case). The appraiser presented that the physical weight of the deceased is approximately 94 cm from the floor of a railing to approximately 112 cm, which is the height of railing, and that there is a great difference. However, the above physical weight is at least 55 cm from the floor of a Korean person with a height of about 174 cm, 'the height of the body weight is at least 174 cm from the floor of a railing, 'the height of the body weight is at least 55 cm from the floor of the deceased's height (see, e.g., 171 m., the appraisal report of this case). However, it is difficult to conclude that the average physical weight of the deceased was at least 9 cm based on the height of the deceased's body weight or weight, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that there is no possibility to apply the average value of 17 c.

Therefore, even when collecting the result of the appraisal commission submitted by the Defendants in the first instance court, it is insufficient to view that there is no reasonable doubt as to the possibility that the instant accident would not be suicide in ordinary people, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Plaintiffs based on the overall purport of the images and arguments in the evidence No. 36 through No. 46 submitted to this court, namely, ① the Deceased was actively involved in the raising of a child before the instant accident, as recognized by the first instance court, and ② the Plaintiff and the Deceased’s parents still seem to maintain a decent relationship even after the instant accident. If the dispute or influence between the Deceased and the Plaintiff was caused so far as it could have become the motive for suicide from ordinary perspective, it is difficult to maintain the aforementioned interval between the Plaintiff and the Deceased, etc., and in view of the fact that it appears that there is no reasonable doubt as to the possibility that the instant accident might not be suicide.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendants' arguments.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable in conclusion, all appeals against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Nam Yang-yang

For the purpose of judges

Judge Choi Hyun-sung

1) An abbreviation is in accordance with the judgment of the court of first instance.