beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: (a) to dismiss “ February 8, 2005” under Section 11 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ February 8, 2006”; and (b) to add the following instructions, it is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
[Supplementary part] In a case where a new affirmative damage occurred after the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit that ordered compensation for affirmative damage caused by a tort, and where there are special circumstances such as it was impossible to anticipate the occurrence of the damage at the time of the closing of argument in the lawsuit and it is impossible to see that a waiver of the part of the claim was not reserved in the previous lawsuit, it does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da78640, Apr. 13, 2007). In this case, the result of physical appraisal of the previous lawsuit was that the result of physical appraisal of No. 5-Yu No. 1 in the previous lawsuit constituted a five-year market. However, the result of physical appraisal of the first instance court conducted after the five-year period of time in Korea market damage remains, and the degree of contribution to the accident in this case remains, and the degree of contribution to the accident in this case is 25% permanent disability.
Unlike the appraisal result of the previous lawsuit predicted five years in the Korean market, damages arising from the fact that there still remains a disability even after the lapse of five years, and that such disability is a permanent disability, shall be deemed a new serious damage that could not have been predicted at the time of the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is separate from the previous lawsuit, and does not conflict with the res judicata effect of the previous lawsuit.
2. If so, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.