(a) Reasons to be considered in offsetting negligence;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that deemed the victim's negligence as 70%

A. If the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, such reason must be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor's damage compensation, and when calculating the ratio of negligence between the two parties, all circumstances related to the occurrence of the accident should be sufficiently considered in light of the purpose of the system of fair burden of damage. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of negligence should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity even if it is a fact-finding authority.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below that deemed the victim's negligence as 70%

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da14291 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2132), 92Da32821 delivered on November 27, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 260), 92Da29719 delivered on July 13, 1993 (193Ha, 2237)

Plaintiff 1 and six others

[Defendant-Appellee] Korea Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellee and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu District Court Decision 93Na1372 delivered on July 16, 1993

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs regarding property damage shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiffs' remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

1. If the victim was negligent with regard to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, such reason must be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of the tortfeasor's damage compensation, and when calculating the ratio of negligence between the two parties, the overall circumstances related to the occurrence of the accident should be sufficiently considered in light of the purpose of the system of fair burden of damage. The fact-finding or setting of the ratio of negligence should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity even if it is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da29719 delivered on July 13, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that Defendant 2, an electrical engineer of Defendant Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as Defendant Co., Ltd.), who is a subcontractor of the new construction of the Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., received a request from Defendant 1, a civil engineering engineer of Dong Chang Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., a subcontractor of the new construction of the Defendant Co., Ltd., to connect one end of the water pumping station to the water pumping station for the purpose of spreading high water in the above new construction site, Defendant 2, at the time, was completely obstructed by all inside the factory of the Defendant Co., Ltd., at the time, but when electricity coming within the factory at the end of the mid-term period, electricity coming from the above container, and thus, even if electricity coming into the inside the factory, the electrical engineer of the above deceased Co., Ltd., Ltd., was negligent in supplying electricity to all of the deceased Co., Ltd., Ltd., and at the same time, it was found that there was a lot of time to be no error between Defendant 2 and the above.

2. However, according to the statements in Gap evidence 7-12, the first instance court and the testimony by non-party 2 of the witness of the court below employed by the court below, it is difficult to view that the above deceased's construction site for the defendant company was connected to the defendant company's new factory construction site to mean that the above deceased's construction site for the defendant company was connected to the defendant company's new factory construction site before connecting the plug to the power source of the factory, and that the defendant 2 exceeded the wires of the above factory's power source location connecting the above factory's electric wires to the defendant company at the time of connecting the factory's electric wires to the electric power source, and the above non-party 2 knew that it was not a employee of the defendant company, and it was difficult to view that all of the above electrical wires were connected to the defendant company's construction site for the defendant company's new construction site for the defendant's new construction site were connected to the defendant company's new construction site or that all of the defendant company's new construction site had been connected to the above 2's electrical power source.

Therefore, under the above circumstances, deeming the above deceased’s negligence ratio to 70% and offsetting negligence cannot be deemed as unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.

There is reason to point this out.

3. The Plaintiffs did not pay the grounds of appeal regarding the consolation money portion.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs as to property damage is reversed and remanded, and the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed. The costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)