2015Da254293 Compensation for damages

2015Da254309 (Consolidation) Compensation for damages (a consolidation)

1. A;

2

3

4

5

6

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

10. J

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

13. M;

14.N

15. 0

16. P;

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2013964, 2015Na2015Na2013971 Decided November 20, 2015

(Consolidation) Judgment

May 12, 2016

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of extinctive prescription

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence admitted by the lower court, it can be deemed that there was an objective obstacle that the Plaintiffs could not expect the Plaintiffs to exercise the right to claim damages of this case against the Defendant until July 5, 2013, and the rest of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff P, on September 16, 2013, and on September 17, 2013, Plaintiff P filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gada84273 on September 17, 2013, supra, on which the case was cultivated under the same court No. 2014Gada518902, and the same court 2013 combined with the same court 69274. The lower court’s judgment’s judgment was 9’s error, and it is apparent that the Plaintiffs exercised the right to claim damages of this case within six months prior to the date of extinctive prescription of each of the instant case.

Although the reasoning of the judgment below is somewhat insufficient, the court below recognized the State's liability for damages and rejected the defendant's defense for the completion of extinctive prescription is just in conclusion, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of the extinctive prescription,

2. In a case where consolation money is calculated due to a tort, it is consistent with the principle of fair and equitable compensation for damages to be considered together with the situation of the perpetrator, including the victim's age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from damage, degree of negligence of the victim, etc. as well as the victim's intentional intent and negligence, motive and cause of the harmful act, and attitude of the perpetrator after the illegal act, etc. In addition, the court may determine consolation money at its own discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da41377, Apr. 23, 199; 2007Da7149, Dec. 24, 2009; 207Da7149, Dec. 24, 2009). Meanwhile, in exceptional cases where consolation money compensation damages due to the illegal act should be calculated from the date of closing argument at fact-finding court to the extent that the victim's family members suffered damages due to the illegal act were reduced to 120 days.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it cannot be deemed that the amount of consolation money recognized by the court below is excessive to the extent that it goes beyond the bounds of discretion of the fact-finding court.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jae-han