beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Plaintiff A in the judgment is modified as follows.
The defendant is against the plaintiff A 239,801.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation in this case is as follows: (a) the part of “the scope of damages for 3.3” in the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 8 through 17) is advanced as stated in the following 2; and (b) the part concerning Plaintiff A is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the conclusion of the part concerning Plaintiff A is partially different; and (c) thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance: "3. Scope of compensation;
A. In calculating consolation money due to a tort in the amount of consolation money, consideration of the victim's circumstances, such as the victim's age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from the damage, degree of the victim's fault or negligence, motive and cause of the harmful act, and attitude of the perpetrator after the illegal act, together with the circumstances on the part of the perpetrator, is consistent with the principle of fair liability for damages. The court may determine the amount of consolation money at its own discretion, taking into account such various circumstances into account.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on non-performance of a tort, and thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to non-performance of a tort, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to non-performance of a tort, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da38325, Mar. 29, 2012).