[손해배상][집10(3)민,253]
Article 765(1) of the Civil Act and the court's duty of explanation
If an accident happens to cross a crosswalk which is not a crosswalk specified in order to maintain the order of road traffic, the victim shall not be negligent.
Article 765(1) of the Act, Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act
Lee Jae-gu et al.
Samnam Passenger Transport Corporation (Attorney Hail-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Gwangju High Court Decision 62Na72 delivered on June 13, 1962
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant are as follows.
As to the first and second grounds for appeal
Since the court below recognized the fact that the healthy male could survive until 60 years of age only because the victim's 6,00 won was the monthly income at the time of the occurrence of the accident, it did not err in recognizing that the victim's YY died before the victim's 60 years of age or that the monthly income of YY would change between the 60 years of age and 60,000 won per month until 60 years of age, and there is no error in law since the court below recognized the YY as the 523,000 won as the income which would have been earned if YY still remains, and there is no reason to acknowledge that YY's 6,500 won was actually consumed every month at the time of the occurrence of the accident, and there is no reason to acknowledge that YSY's YY's YY's YY's YY's YY's YY's YY's YY's YY's Y's Y.
Concerning the third ground for appeal
The court below did not have any reason to view that the defendant was at fault of the non-party, who is the defendant's employee, with respect to the accident of the motor vehicle, and that the defendant did not exercise due diligence in the appointment and supervision of the two-youngs, and that the court below legitimately recognized the plaintiffs in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the living conditions of the plaintiffs, remaining self-supports, and the property relationship of the defendant company.
Concerning the fourth ground for appeal
Article 765 of the Civil Act provides that a person liable to compensate for damages caused by a tort under the Civil Act shall be entitled to claim a reduction in the amount of compensation if the damages were caused neither intentionally nor by gross negligence, but the compensation would have a serious effect on his livelihood. Therefore, if a person liable to compensate for damages wishes to have such reduction in the amount of compensation, the court shall prove the facts provided for in Article 765 of the Civil Act and request a reduction in the amount of compensation, and the court shall have no obligation to ask for the reduction in the amount of compensation. The records of this case cannot be found in the facts alleged in Article 765 of the Civil Act, and there is no illegality of the court below's failure to ask for a reduction in the amount of compensation, and the court shall order the payment of compensation for damages other than property under Article 751 (2) of the Civil Act as the obligation to compensate for the amount of compensation for damages, since the court shall order the payment of compensation for the amount of compensation for the amount of compensation for damages, it is reasonable to order the payment of the amount by its own opinion under its reasoning.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, since all of the arguments are without merit.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man Ma-man