beta
Text
Of the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the counterclaim claim of the lower judgment, the positive damages of KRW 10 million and the same.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Based on the facts stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s driver, who was driving on the four-lane, has to live well in and proceed with five-lanes in preparation for the vehicle having a four-lane change to the four-lanes for the entry of the underground vehicle, while maintaining the distance between the vehicle and the vehicle in which the instant accident occurred, is a five-lane road, and can enter the underground lane only through four-lanes except the most right lane. Thus, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s driver negligent in performing such duty of care was the cause of the instant accident.
In light of the records and relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of obligation for post-determination.
2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court recognized the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”), as KRW 21,484,979, and recognized the amount calculated by adding KRW 12,847,869, and the sum of KRW 5,542,89, and KRW 30,000,000, which the Defendant claimed as part of the Plaintiff’s claim, to the amount calculated by multiplying the amount by 30% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
The judgment below
Compared with the evidence adopted by the court below, the above amount of KRW 21,484,979, which was acknowledged by the court below, seems to be the sum total of the amounts stated in each receipt, etc. from No. 10-1 to No. 10-26.
However, comprehensively taking account of the evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 10-1, 10, and 23 of the evidence No. 10, the medical expenses for the hospital No. 10-1 of the evidence No. 10 [the defendant] stated that the correction statement of the claim for the counterclaim (as of June 18, 2013, from No. 443 of the record) was the medical expenses for the branch hospital.