The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount with the rate of 5 percent per annum from September 10, 1985 to the full payment of 1,255,673 won per annum.

2. Each of the remaining appeals by the above plaintiffs, the claim for extension of trial room, the appeal by plaintiffs 3, and the appeal by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit between the plaintiff 1, 2 and the defendant shall be four minutes, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs incurred by the plaintiff 3's appeal and appeal against the above plaintiff shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

4. The amount which is not allowed to be executed separately from the original judgment and the amount under paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed; and

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution (Plaintiff 1 and 2 shall be expanded by the trial at the trial).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 2,337,348 won, 2,00,448 won to the plaintiff 2,50,000 won to the plaintiff 3 as well as 50,000 won per annum from September 10, 1985 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the payment date.

The judgment that the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

Of the part against the defendant in the original judgment, the part against the plaintiff 1 is revoked, which ordered payment exceeding the amount of five percent per annum from September 10, 1985 to the day of full payment of KRW 6,898,776, KRW 6,598, KRW 776 to the plaintiff 2, and KRW 250,000 to the plaintiff 3, respectively, and the part is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim as to the revoked part is dismissed.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings as to evidence Nos. 1 (No. 4), evidence No. 5 (Report on Car Register), evidence No. 10-3 (Protocol of Indictment), evidence No. 11-3 (Report on Traffic Accidents), evidence No. 5 (Report), 9,10,12 (Examination of Examination of Evidence) without dispute over the establishment of each party, Non-party 1, who is the driver of the seat bus No. 6345 of Seoul, the defendant-owned bus No. 603:25 of Sep. 14, 1985, driven the above bus No. 238-3 of Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, and proceeded with the road No. 50 kilometers at the speed of 50 kilometers at the time of death, Non-party 1, who was the non-party 1's name or the non-party 1 who was on the right side of the above road without permission, tried to open it to the left-hand side of the plaintiff 2's vehicle and to stop.

According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for all damages caused by the death of the non-party 2 caused by the above accident that occurred during the operation of the bus as the operator of the automobile for his own sake.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

First, in relation to the import relationship of the above deceased non-party 2, who is the basis for calculating the actual income of this case, the plaintiffs' attorney did not have certain occupation and income at the time of the accident. Thus, the calculation of the actual income of this case shall be based on the Korean total industry, previous academic background, previous career, previous average wage of 252,302 won as of 1984 based on the report on the actual wage status conducted and published by the Ministry of Labor, or at least 218,173 won per month average monthly wage of the general simple labor work according to the above report on actual wage status. Accordingly, the defendant's attorney shall claim that the calculation of the actual income of this case shall be based on the average monthly wage of all industries, academic background, minimum (1 year), monthly average wage of 158,872 won or the construction worker's daily wage of the ordinary construction worker at the time of the accident according to the above report on actual wage status.

살피건대 위 갑 제1호증, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제8,15호증, 을 제1호증의 각 1,2(각 직종별 임금실태보고서), 갑 제9,13호증의 각 1,2(각 건설물가표 표지 및 내용), 갑 제14호증의 1,2(한국표준직업분규 표지 및 내용)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 위 망 소외 2는 1974.8.15.생의 신체건강하였던 남자아이로서 이건 사고당시 그 나이 11세 남짓한 국민학생이었던 사실, 위 노동부의 임금실태보고서에 따른 1984년 기준의 우리나라 전산업, 전학력, 전경력 남녀 월평균임금은 금 252,302원이고 전산업, 전학력, 최저경력(1년)의 남녀 월평균임금은 금 158,872원이며, 경제기획원의 한국표준직업분류상 특정직종으로 분류되지 않는 직종으로서 필요할 때 곡괭이, 삽, 일륜손수레, 도로청소용 비 등의 간단한 작업도구를 사용하면서 물건을 들어올리고, 운반하고, 쌓고, 삽질하고, 땅을 파는 등의 육체적 일을 하는등 주로 육체적 힘을 필요로 하고, 경험이나 독창력, 판단력의 행사가 필요없는 단순하고 고정적 성격의 손일을 하는 직종(그러한 성격의 일을 하지만 농장과 광산에서 간단한 손일을 하는 노동자, 각종 시설물의 문지기와 청소부, 호텔의 짐운반인, 부두노동자와 화물취급자는 각각 임금수준이 높은 특정직종으로 분류되고 있으므로 이하 위 직종을 일반단순노무직종이라 약칭한다)에 종사하는 남자의 전경력 월평균임금은 금 218,173원(월급여액 금 191,170원＋연간 특별급여액 금 324,041원 12)이고 최저경력9(1년)의 월평균임금은 금 194,035원(월급여액은 금 182,466원＋연간특별급여액 금 138,829원÷12)인 사실, 대한 건설협회의 건설물가표에 따른 1일 8시간 작업기준 건설공사 현장의 남자 보통인부의 임금은 1985.6.말 현재 하루 금 7,200원이고, 같은해 12.말 현재 하루 금 7,500원인 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 일용노동자가 월평균 25일씩 가동할 수 있음은 경험칙상 명백한 바, 위 망인과 같이 불법행위로 인하여 사망한 자로서 불법행위당시 일정한 수입이 없는 피해자의 장래의 수입상실액은 보통사람이면 누구나 종사하여 얻을 수 있는 일반노동임금을 기준으로 삼아야 하고, 피해자의 학력이나 경력 등을 참작하여 그 수입을 책정할 수는 없는 것인 만큼 원고주장과 같은 고수준의 전산업, 전학력, 전경력 남녀의 평균통계임금이나 피고주장과 같은 저수준의 전산업, 전학력, 최저경력 남녀의 평균통계임금(그 임금수준이 남자의 일반단순노무직종임금보다도 낮은 이유는 주로 그것이 남녀임금의 평균치인 점에 기인 하는 것으로 보임)을 일실수입산정의 기초로함은 합리적 근거없는 막연한 것으로서 타당치 못하다 할 것이고( 대법원 1986.2.25. 선고 85다카1954 판결 참조), 위 노동부의 임금통계에 따른 일반단순노무직종임금이나 위 건설협회의 건설임금통계에 따른 보통건설인부임금(1985.12.말 기준 월 금 187,500원=금 7,500원×25)은 어느 것이나 학력, 경험등이 없이도 신체건강한 보통사람이면 누구나 종사하여 얻을 수 있는 일반노동임금이라 할 것이지만, 후자는 건설산업분야에 한정된 것으로서 근로기준법상의 근로기준 시간인 1일 8시간 근로를 기준으로 하는 임금통계임에 비하여, 전자는 그러한 제약이 없는 임금통계로서 후자보다 그 임금수준이 다소 높은바, 모든 국민에게 직업선택 및 거주이전의 자유가 보장되고 있는 점 및 근로기준법상 1일 8시간 근로를 원칙으로 하되 당사자의 합의에 따라 연장근로를 할 수 있고, 다만 그에 대하여는 연장근로수당을 지급하도록 되어 있는 점( 제42조 , 제46조 )등을 감안한다면, 위 망인의 일실수입액은 위 노동부 임금통계상의 일반단순노무직종의 남자평균임금, 그 중에서도 최저경력의 월평균임금 194,035원을 기초로 하여 산정함이 상당하다 할 것이다.

Therefore, according to the records of No. 7-1 and No. 7-2 (Simplified Life Table and Contents) without dispute over the establishment, it can be acknowledged that the average life expectancy of Korean male who is equivalent to the above deceased's age is 54.66 years. The facts requiring about 1/3 of the income as living expenses of the above deceased do not conflict between the parties, and it is obvious in light of the rule of experience that a person engaged in ordinary simple labor can operate until the age of 5 ends.

According to the above facts, if the above deceased had not been an accident, he would have been 129,356 won per month after he reached the age of 23 after the accident (143 months after the death of the deceased) and reached the military service (143 months after the death of the deceased) through 396 months from the time when he reached the age of 55 to the time when he reached the age of 55, and could have been 194,035 won per month. However, due to the death of the accident, 129,356 won after deducting the living expenses from the above monthly income (194,035 won x 2/3, and 2/3, as sought by the plaintiffs, hereinafter the same shall apply). Thus, it is evident that the plaintiffs have sought payment on a lump time as at the time of the accident, and it is clear that the amount of 129,512/120 per month is 198,196.35 196.15 1.6.6.3

(b) Funeral expenses.

The plaintiff 1 paid a sum of KRW 600,00 to the above deceased non-party 2's funeral and paid a sum of KRW 600,000 at its expense, since there is no dispute between the parties, the above plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to funeral expenses due to the accident of this case.

(c) Compensation money;

In this case, the death of Nonparty 2 as well as the above plaintiffs who suffered a large amount of mental pain is easily acceptable in light of the empirical rule. Thus, the defendant is obligated to do so. The reason and result of the accident in this case, the amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 3,00,000 for the above deceased, KRW 2,00,000 for the plaintiff 1 and 2, and KRW 50,000 for the plaintiff 3,00,000 for each case, taking into account the circumstances such as the age and status of the above deceased and the plaintiffs, as shown in the argument of this case.

However, the defendant, as the operator of the bus in this case, provided the above plaintiffs 1 and 2 with consolation money of 3,00,000 won as compensation for non-party 2 as a joint tortfeasor, but the above plaintiffs refused to receive it. Thus, the defendant argued that the above plaintiffs deposited the above amount of 3,00,000 won on November 19, 1985. Thus, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement of 2-1,2 (deposit, etc.) No. 2-2 (Deposit, etc.) without dispute in the establishment, the non-party 1 provided the above plaintiffs as consolation money (the above non-party 2 was not indicated as consolation money for non-party 2) as the above plaintiffs, but refused to receive it. Thus, it is recognized that the above amount of consolation money was paid to the non-party 2 and the above plaintiffs, as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be viewed that the above plaintiffs' claim to receive consolation money of 3,000,000 won or the above plaintiffs' claim against the above part of the above plaintiffs' claim amount.

(d) Inheritance relations; and

The above deceased's property damages and consolation money are KRW 24,906,451 (21,906,451 + 3,000,000) in total. The above claim for damages against the defendant of the above deceased was inherited in 12,453,225 won (24,906,451 won x 1/2) in accordance with his respective statutory shares of inheritance to the plaintiff 1 and 2, who are his heir, due to his death.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant shall pay 15,053,225 won to the plaintiff 1 (12,453,225 won + funeral expenses + 600,000 won + 2,000 won) and 14,453,225 won to the plaintiff 2 (12,453,225 won + 225 won plus 2,000 won in inheritance) and 50,000,00 won in total and 50,000 won in each of the above appeals filed by the plaintiff 1 to the defendant from September 10, 1985 to the full payment of the above damages for delay, and the remaining part of the appeal by the plaintiff 2 to the plaintiff 3 is without merit. Since the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay against the plaintiff 1 to the plaintiff 2 is without merit, the defendant shall be dismissed as to each of the above part of the above appeal to the plaintiff 1 to the extent of damages for delay as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)