204Da37362 Compensation (i)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea Fire Insurance Corporation

Attorney Park Jong-hun, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Daejeon High Court Decision 200349450 delivered on June 25, 2004

April 14, 2005

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

1. On February 24, 199, the court below found that the deceased non-party 1 driven the vehicle (vehicle number omitted; hereinafter referred to as the "motor vehicle of this case") on the basis of the 1st half of the 1999 car, while the deceased non-party 1 driven the vehicle at around 20 non-party 1, the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 1st of the 2nd.

However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below on the plaintiff 1's ratio of negligence in this case.

If the victim was negligent with respect to the occurrence or expansion of damages caused by a tort, such reasons must be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of damages to the victim. In light of the purport of the system that equitable burden of damages to bridges, the fact-finding process or the rate of damages should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity, even if it is the exclusive right of fact-finding regarding the reasons for offsetting negligence. Supreme Court Decisions 20036805 Decided July 22, 2004; 2001Da734 Decided June 27, 2003; 9Da21264 Decided August 24, 199). Article 61 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the driver of a motor vehicle or the driver of a motor vehicle who was at the time of the accident should not be able to drive the motor vehicle on an expressway or the exclusive road for the same reasons, and the driver of a motor vehicle should be able to remove the motor vehicle on the left-hand side of the expressway by means of an accident or other necessary measures.

Even if Plaintiff 1 was negligent in driving the instant truck in excess of a somewhat limited speed by neglecting the duty of front-time care, compared to Plaintiff 1’s negligence, it cannot be said that Nonparty 1’s negligence, who stopped and left the instant vehicle on the two-lanes of the expressway without taking proper safety measures to prevent the occurrence of accidents, such as installing an accident sign and signal prescribed by the Road Traffic Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, or using an emergency flashing sign, etc. at the night at which Non-Party 1’s expense, is insufficient to say that the negligence by the deceased Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, who left the instant vehicle on the two-lanes of the expressway. In full view of the negligence by the deceased Nonparty 1’s negligence, the lower court recognized the rate of negligence by Plaintiff 1 as 60%, and set-off negligence by misapprehending the legal doctrine on offsetting negligence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Meanwhile, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the plaintiff 1 received hospitalized treatment from February 24, 1999 to September 30 of the same year from September of the same year, and the fact that the degree of contribution to the accident of this case to the whole injury received during the period of hospitalization was 0%, and recognized the labor ability loss rate of the above plaintiff 1 as 0%. On the first date for pleading of the court below, it is obvious that the parties stated that the degree of contribution to the accident of this case to the whole injury received during the period of hospitalization was 90% in the record, and therefore, the court below recognized the labor ability loss rate of the above plaintiff 1 to 0% in the period of hospitalization due to the lack of dispute, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the law or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the labor ability loss rate during the period of hospitalization.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the plaintiffs among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Kang Jin-bok

Justices Shin Hyun-chul