[손해배상등청구사건][고집1966민,284]
Where a vehicle which was stopped intends to proceed, the duty of care of a person who was in the front and rear of the vehicle.
Since it cannot be predicted that the operation of a vehicle which stops in an unspecified place is proceeding only on the front side, if the vehicle stopped to operate an engine with the engine, the vehicle is obliged to maintain a reasonable distance from the front side as well as all persons in the rear side.
Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Countries
Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana8602) in the first instance trial
The original judgment shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay 20,00 won to the plaintiff 1, 160,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% interest per annum from November 12, 1963 to the full payment.
All remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of the lawsuit shall be divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and the two parts shall be borne by the defendant, and the remaining one shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Of the money stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 shall be provisionally executed for the portion exceeding KRW 140,000, respectively.
The attorney of the plaintiff (Appellant) shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 360,184 won, 210,092 won to the plaintiff 2, and an amount of 5% per annum from November 12, 1963 to the full payment.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs should be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.
The defendant (Appellant) litigation performer shall revoke the original judgment.
The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
The court of first and second instances sought a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the plaintiffs.
According to the evidence No. 2 (judgment) without dispute over the establishment of the deceased, the non-party 1 is a superior officer of the Army Fire Agency of the Army, the Army Fire Agency of the defendant country, and is engaged in driving a food truck of 107 units belonging to the same military unit. At around 70:0 o'clock 11, 1963, the non-party 1, who is an affiliated agency of the defendant country, and was trying to drive the jum with the aim of heating the engine of the above jum in the front-nam mine area. In this case, the non-party 2, who is engaged in driving of the vehicle, should have the non-party 1 start up the vehicle after investigating the existence of the person or other obstacles, and the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1, had the non-party 2 suffered from the above jum jum jum 2's death without taking measures at that time, and thus, the defendant cannot be seen as having caused the non-party 1's death after the above ju jum.
However, according to the above, the defendant's litigation performer asserts comparative negligence on the ground that he was negligent in the victim's negligence in the accident at this time. Thus, if we added the whole purport of the oral argument to the statement No. 1 on this point, it can be seen that the progress rate of the accident that caused the accident at the time was about 2 miles, and the victim, the non-party 2, who is the victim, was behind the accident at the time. It is difficult to predict that the vehicle stopped at the place where the accident is not specified as the course, such as the Gunndoe, is operated only on the front side, and therefore, when the vehicle stops to operate an engine, the vehicle at the stop and all persons located on the front side of the vehicle, as well as on the front side of the vehicle, should be considered to be a person or duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, and therefore, the non-party 2, who is the victim, should not be considered to have been able to operate the vehicle after the accident at the time without any negligence.
Then, we examine the property damages that the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs.
The above non-party 2 is a male health chain of 26 years (1938.25) as of the time of the death of the deceased, and the average female is 35.21 years. Thus, the above non-party 2 was 27 years old and 28 years old and 30 years old and 55 years old and 50 years old and 7 years old and 40 days old and 50 days old and 50 days old and 50 days old and 20 days old. Thus, the above non-party 2 was 40 days old and 5 days old and 7 days old and 50 days old and 9 days old and 7 days old and 50 days old and 9 days old and 7 days old and 10 days old and 20 days old and 20 days old and 5 days old and 7 days old and 7 days old and 10 days old and 5 days old and 7 days old and 197 days old and 20 days old.
Finally, I examine the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money.
The facts that the plaintiffs are parents of the deceased non-party 2 are already mentioned above, and it is not difficult to see that the plaintiffs suffered a lot of shocks due to the accident in this case, the above non-party deceased who is their children, and might have passed away from the experience. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs sufficient money for the mental suffering which they suffered. Accordingly, considering the above amount's age and other all other circumstances, the consolation money that the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs should be paid to the plaintiffs as 60,000 won, respectively, in consideration of the plaintiffs' age and other circumstances known by Gap evidence.
Therefore, as seen above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 260,00, 160,000 won per annum from November 12, 1963, the day following the accident occurred to the full payment system, and the amount of 5% per annum from November 12, 1963 to the day after the accident occurred. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the above amount is justified only within the scope of the above recognition amount, and the remaining claim is dismissed because there is no reason. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is unfair and it is reasonable to conclude a different judgment of the party members and partial conclusion, and therefore, the defendant's appeal for this case is reasonable within the above unfair limit, and the judgment of the court below is to be modified in accordance with Article 385 of the Civil Procedure Act, and with respect to the payment of the costs of lawsuit, Article 19 of the Civil Execution Act shall be applied to the sentence of provisional execution as stipulated in Article 19 of the same Act.
Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)