beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "It is reasonable to view that an electrical ship has been caused by mixing with an electrical ship" of about 5, 10,000 of the judgment of the court of first instance; "The electrical flame (Akk) generated by the interruption of electrical ship due to the interruption of electrical ship shall be deemed to have caused it"; and 2.B.
3. As set forth in Section 2(a) below, the portion of the “liability offsetting” is as follows:
In addition to the addition of the two pages 10, two pages 10, two pages 10, and two pages 10, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. If a victim is found to have been negligent in applying the comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act, the court shall take such fact into account in determining the liability for damages and the amount thereof; and even if a person liable for damages fails to make a claim against the victim’s negligence, the court shall ex officio examine and determine the case where the damage
In addition, this legal principle also applies to the reason for mitigation of liability in a case where the amount of damages is restricted in light of the principle of fair apportionment of damages.
(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da30113 delivered on October 25, 1996, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10364 delivered on October 25, 2007, etc.). Regarding the instant case, the following are acknowledged by health class, the evidence mentioned in the evidence No. 24-1, No. 24-2, and No. 1, No. 24-2, and the purport of the entire pleadings. In other words, ① the Defendant had a construction business operator perform construction, such as the construction of rooftop of the instant building, around May 22, 2009, by requiring the construction business operator to perform construction, such as the construction of roof of the instant building, etc., the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 4 million out of the balance after the completion of the said construction to the construction business operator after checking the leakage.