The case reversing the judgment of the court below that determined the probative value of the same factual basis in the criminal trial.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which rejected the evidence corresponding to the facts without adopting a factual judgment on the grounds that it is not a special circumstance where it is impossible to adopt a factual judgment in the civil trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, since the fact that the criminal judgment which became final and conclusive on the same factual basis was not bound by the fact-finding of the criminal trial is a significant evidence, and thus it cannot be acknowledged that it is against the fact-finding in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the civil trial.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da39215 delivered on January 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 820), Supreme Court Decision 94Da32757 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2782), Supreme Court Decision 94Da31259 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3512)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 95Na2504 delivered on December 7, 1995

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff asserted that at around 11:00 on April 29, 1993, the defendant suffered injury, such as pressure 1 caused by the defendant's act, and thereby lost the plaintiff's labor ability, and that 45% of the plaintiff's labor ability was claimed against the defendant for the payment of the plaintiff's income and consolation money as an urban worker who was lost due to the above injury. The court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim for consolation money on the premise that the plaintiff's claim for consolation money was accepted only part of the plaintiff's losses due to the defendant's assault in his house, which caused the plaintiff's monetary transaction relation with the defendant at his house with his own temporary location, and continued to spathn and spathn with the plaintiff's spath and spathy with the plaintiff's spathical and spathy, but it is hard to believe that the defendant committed violence to the plaintiff at the pressure No. 1.

(2) Even if the original civil trial is not bound by the finding of facts in the criminal trial, the facts found guilty of the same facts are significant evidence. Thus, it cannot be recognized that the facts of the criminal trial were opposed to the finding of facts in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da11028, Jan. 29, 1991; 91Da37690, May 22, 1992; 92Da31453, Jan. 15, 1993; 94Da39215, Jan. 12, 1995; 94Da39215, Apr. 29, 1995; 195Da39215, Apr. 10, 1993; 2000Du1655, Nov. 16, 1993).

However, the court below rejected the factual determination of the above criminal judgment, and therefore, it states that it is difficult to believe the contents of the above criminal judgment in light of the age difference between the plaintiff and the defendant, physical condition, etc. Therefore, even if examining the records, there is no evidence to compare the physical conditions of the plaintiff and the defendant. However, according to the records, the plaintiff was born in 1956 and the defendant was born in 1937. However, in this case where it is acknowledged that the defendant was able to seek damages and losses over the plaintiff, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant's act did not reach the extent of causing injury to the plaintiff under the pressure Section 1 of the YA. Thus, it cannot be said that there is no special circumstance that it is difficult to adopt the factual determination of the above criminal judgment, which serves as valuable evidentiary evidence, only for the reasons stated by the court below.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence Nos. 10-3 (S. Report) and the evidence Nos. 10-4 (Medical Car) of the same No. 10-3 (S. Report), it can be seen that immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant complained of the doctor at the time of receiving medical treatment in the hospital emergency room, and later hospitalized and discharged on June 23, 1993. The evidence No. 3 (In the following day of the instant case, the evidence No. 10-3 of the above evidence No. 10 stated that the Plaintiff had been subject to pressure from the Defendant’s act of pressure since the date of the Plaintiff’s treatment, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had been subject to pressure from the Defendant’s act of pressure from the record No. 10-3 of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion is a failure to conduct a deliberation or an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by violating the rules of evidence, and therefore, it is reasonable to point out this issue.

(3) Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)