2017Da234880 Preemptives

I (Trade Name before Change: A Co., Ltd.)

B A.

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Na303701 Decided May 24, 2017

October 12, 2017

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The principle of free evaluation of evidence, which is declared by Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act, means that it is not necessary to be bound by the formal and legal evidence rules, and does not allow a judge’s arbitrary judgment. Thus, the recognition of facts shall be in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the principle of justice and equity, based on the evidentiary evidence duly admitted through the evidence examination process. The fact-finding shall not go beyond the bounds of the fact-finding, even if it falls under the exclusive authority of the fact-finding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da77198, 77204, Apr. 13, 201

2. The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined as follows.

A. The Defendant is a person who manufactures and installs the press machinery of this case, who is liable for damages caused by tort against the victim. The C Limited Liability Corporation in China (hereinafter “C”) is a manager of the press machinery of this case, and is liable for damages caused by tort against the victim. These obligations are objectively for the same economic purpose as compensation liability for the same damages, and if one of the overlapping portions becomes extinct due to repayment, etc., other obligations are also extinguished upon the achievement of the other purpose. In full view of all the circumstances, it is reasonable to determine the portion of joint liability between C and the Defendant as 30%, and the portion of the Defendant’s liability against the victim, as 70%. The Plaintiff was assigned the claim for damages against the Defendant by C from the Plaintiff.

B. The amount of the claim for reimbursement claimed by the Plaintiff is the sum of ① the amount of damages 36,800 bills in accordance with the agreement made on December 12, 2014 between C and the victim and ② the amount of expenses additionally paid by C to the victims, their families, etc. from July 11, 2012 to July 11, 2012, including medical expenses, transportation expenses, lodging expenses, etc. However, with respect to the part ①, it is insufficient to recognize that C paid money exceeding the 44,94.88 bills in excess of the above amount of damages only with the statement of evidence No. 4-1 and witness E, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) As to the part, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above expenses constitute part of the amount of damages with causations with the accident of this case only with the statements of Gap evidence 5 through 39 and the testimony of witness E, and further, it is insufficient to recognize that Eul actually paid the above expenses, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

C The fact that the victim was compensated in excess of his/her own share out of the amount of damages can be acknowledged against the Defendant. Since the amount of damages that C paid to the victim falls short of the amount as the 44,94.88 Draft, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on C’s acquisition of the right to indemnity against the Defendant cannot be accepted.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable in determining that the 105,346.46 bill, which was additionally disbursed by the victim and his family members, for medical expenses, transportation expenses, lodging expenses, etc. from 2012, 711, constitutes part of the amount of damages with causation with the instant accident, and further, it is insufficient to recognize that C actually paid the said expenses. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. However, the lower court’s determination that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the 336,800 bill was actually paid between C and the victim on December 12, 2014 as follows.

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The contents of the agreement made on December 12, 2014 between C and the victim are as follows: “The right-hand side of the victim is improved after hospital treatment, disability grade 6, and disability payment period is determined as 23 months; and C pays to the victim a total of 336,800 bills, including primary disability subsidies, primary disability subsidies, primary employment subsidies, primary employment subsidies, and salary for official duty, etc.; the victim immediately cancels the labor contract after receiving compensation; the victim does not assert any right in relation to the instant accident; and the above agreement is valid from that date.”

2) E, a general interest in C, testified to the effect that “E was present as a witness in the first instance trial and paid all the amounts specified in the written agreement on December 12, 2014.”

3) The instant accident occurred on July 5, 2012, and C transferred its claim for indemnity against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2014, and the agreement was drafted on December 12, 2014 between C and the victim, and C and the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement to confirm that the Plaintiff repaid the claim for indemnity against the victim to C on June 9, 2016.

B. The following circumstances revealed in light of these factual relations are interpreted to mean that the consultation of this case shall be paid immediately, considering that the payment period is not specified in the agreement of this case, and the consultation of this case shall be paid to C and the victim after two years and five months from the accident of this case, and at the same time all disputes arising from the accident of this case are terminated and the victim shall not assert any right in the future C. ② The primary disability subsidy, primary employment subsidy, and official disability benefit are the amount forced to be paid under Chinese law, and the total amount is deemed reasonable in light of the degree of disability, treatment period, disability grade, etc. of the victim, ③ The consultation of this case takes effect on the date of its preparation, ④ The consultation of this case shall not be deemed to have been paid in violation of logical and empirical rules and shall not be deemed to have any effect on the claim of this case for reimbursement of the whole amount of money in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Park Jong-young