2015Da204458 Claims (i.e., losses)

Appellant

A

Appellee

Co., Ltd.

Ulsan District Court Decision 2014Na10519 Decided January 14, 2015

August 27, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding property damage shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Ulsan District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's incidental appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

statement that the victim of a traffic accident has received medical expenses from an automobile insurance company in which the perpetrator has joined;

In doing so, the part corresponding to the ratio of fault of the victim among the treatment costs ought to be deducted from the amount of damages suffered by the perpetrator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da80778, Sept. 4, 2002). Meanwhile, the appellate court has to make a determination as to the allegations in the first instance court or other means of attack and defense, even if the appellate court specifically pointed out or did not re-invenate in the subsequent trial as the grounds for appeal, since the allegations by the parties in the first instance are maintained as they are, and thus, the appellate court has to make a determination as to the grounds for appeal or other means of attack and defense in the second instance (see, e

According to the records, the defendant paid 64,951,837 won to the plaintiff's medical expenses, and the defendant asserted to the effect that the amount equivalent to the ratio of the plaintiff's fault among the above medical expenses paid by the defendant through the preparatory brief dated March 20, 2014 should be deducted from the defendant's compensation amount for damages to the plaintiff. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below which recognized the plaintiff's negligence in relation to the accident of this case should have deducted the amount equivalent to the ratio of the plaintiff's fault from the property damage to the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the court below did not make any determination as to the defendant's claim for the above deduction, and did not deduct the amount equivalent to the plaintiff's share of the medical expenses claimed by the defendant from the amount of property damage to be compensated by the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by omitting judgment which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's ground

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's supplementary appeal

The time limit to file an appeal is until the expiration of the time limit for submitting the appellate brief corresponding to the time of closing argument in the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da10439, Apr. 12, 2007).

According to the records, it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed an incidental appeal on March 26, 2015, which was 20 days after the deadline for submitting an appellate brief from February 26, 2015, which was served on the Defendant, the appellant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s incidental appeal of this case is unlawful and cannot correct the defects.

3. Conclusion

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant regarding property damage is reversed, and that part of 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 Yong-deok

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Kim In-young