beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The reasoning of this Court is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the grounds for which the plaintiffs asserted again in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the entry in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In addition, consolation money due to a tort shall be calculated in compliance with the principle of fair liability for damages, considering the situation of the victim, such as 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 and negligent act, motive and cause of the harmful act, and attitude of the perpetrator after the illegal act, etc., together with the situation of the perpetrator. In calculating consolation money, there is a limit that the amount should be calculated in compliance with the general legal sentiment, and therefore, it goes beyond the limit to calculate consolation money which is remarkably contrary to the idea of fair sharing of damage and the principle of equity, it goes beyond the limit of discretion of the fact-finding court.
In particular, consolation money should be limited to the amount of suffering from the emotional distress of a victim caused by a tort. Therefore, in cases where it is possible to determine the amount of damages for active and passive damages caused by a tort, compensating for property damage under the name of consolation money cannot be allowed, and it is more true in cases where proof of the occurrence of such damages is insufficient.
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following facts are examined: (a) the Plaintiff’s age and relationship; (b) the Defendant’s illegal act; (c) the Plaintiffs’ emotional distress from the perpetrator; and (d) the Defendant received KRW 5,000,000 from the perpetrator with respect to the instant accident.