beta
Text
All appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal and supplementary appeal shall be borne by each party.
Reasons
1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
The judgment below
According to the reasoning, the court below determined that the injury suffered by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) due to the instant accident that occurred while driving by the Plaintiff, the insured, constitutes class 2 injury to which the maximum amount of KRW 15 million is applied under the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “Act”), and that in light of the purport of the proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the victim of traffic accident can claim the amount equivalent to the above medical expenses under the above proviso within the above limit, regardless of whether or not there was any negligence or negligence having contributed to the occurrence of the traffic accident, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the medical expenses less the above liability insurance amount (i.e., KRW 19,736, 220 won (= KRW 19,736, 220-15,000,000) and the delay damages therefrom as unjust enrichment.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat inappropriate, the judgment of the court below is eventually justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the proviso of Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree
2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of incidental appeal.
The judgment below
According to its reasoning, the court below limited C's liability for the instant accident to 5% on the basis of the circumstances set forth in its reasoning, and determined that the original defendant has the duty as stated in its reasoning.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules
3. Therefore, all of the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed.