B. Whether her husband's fault may be considered as the fault of the injured party in a case where the injured party claims damages to a third party due to a collision that takes place on the back seat of her husband's driving (affirmative with qualification)

C. The case holding that with respect to the agreement between the victim and the perpetrator on the traffic accident as referred to in the above "B", the party's intention was to terminate all damages related to the accident by taking into account the husband's negligence on the part of the driver who driven the Oral Sea.

B. In a case where the injured party claims damages against a third party due to a collision with a passenger car driven by a third party while the injured party is getting on the back seat of the husband, the fault of the husband may be considered as the fault of the injured party, barring any special circumstances.

C. The case holding that the party's intention was to terminate all damages related to the accident in consideration of the husband's negligence on the part of the husband who driven the Oral Sea with respect to the agreement between the victim and the perpetrator on the traffic accident under the above "B".

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the above non-party 1 and the defendant's fault ratio of 50 won to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, who was the defendant's wife who was on the back 5's seat, and the plaintiff paid 54,841,550 won to the above non-party 3 as the insurer of the motor vehicle comprehensive insurance for the above non-party 3 as damages, and agreed to waive all rights to the above non-party 3 as to the damage caused by the traffic accident since the above non-party 3 on behalf of the above non-party 3. The above non-party 3 did not dispute between the above non-party 1 and the non-party 5's driver, and determined that the non-party 1 and the defendant's fault ratio to the above non-party 5's damages amount to the non-party 3 as the insurer of the above non-party 3's damages amount to the non-party 4 and the above non-party 5's damages amount to the above non-party 1 and 57565.

2. The purport of Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act to consider the victim's negligence in determining the liability for damages caused by the tort and the amount thereof is to fairly share the damage caused by the tort between the perpetrator and the victim. Therefore, the victim's negligence should be taken into account not only the victim's negligence but also the negligence of a person who is in a relationship that can be viewed as forming a whole of social life and status as well as the negligence of the victim.

Therefore, in this case, in case where the defendant driving the above non-party 3, who is his wife, on the back of Oral Ba, while driving the car driven by the non-party 1 and the above non-party 3 claims damages against a third party who is not the defendant, it is reasonable to interpret that the negligence of the defendant, who is the husband, can be considered as the negligence of the victim unless there are other special circumstances in calculating the amount of damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Da1759, Feb. 10, 1987; 91Da30156, Nov. 12, 1991).

If it is not so interpreted, the third party, who is the perpetrator, compensates the above non-party 3, who is the victim, for the damages not considered as the fault of the defendant who is the husband, and again demands the defendant, who is the husband, to recover the share equivalent to the rate of fault of the husband. This is just because it is against the status of the husband and the unity in the life of the husband, and it is not reasonable. It is unreasonable to resolve the damages or the relation of indemnity or to settle the

3. According to the records, the agreement of this case between the plaintiff who was represented by the above non-party 3 and the non-party 2 is merely three days before the conclusion of the pleadings in the first instance court by filing a lawsuit against the above non-party 3 and the defendant's mother. At the time, the amount claimed by the non-party 3 is 61,839,576 won except for the amount of the king's medical expenses borne by the plaintiff. The amount claimed by the non-party 3 is 29,375,530 won except for the amount of 25,46,020 won for the king's medical expenses (or 54,841,50 won if the plaintiff's king's medical expenses were combined). Considering that the agreement of this case and each written agreement of this case were made by the defendant and the non-party 4, who is the defendant's mother, the plaintiff's intention to seek reimbursement from the defendant's non-party 3 as well as the above non-party 1's opinion to dispute.

4. Upon examining the record, the defendant stated that the damages suffered by the above non-party 3 on the third day for pleading of the first instance of this case are 53,765,150, and that there is no dispute. The amount is the same as the sum of the insurance proceeds claimed by the plaintiff to be paid in favor of the above non-party 3 at the complaint (the end of the third part of the claim) and the purport of this amount is not that it is recognized as damages before the above non-party 3 suffered, but it is understood that the above non-party 3 is the same as the amount of damages suffered by the above non-party 3, and it is also viewed in light of the purport of the defendant's answer expressed in the argument of this case. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a hindrance to the judgment under the above paragraph

5. If so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on tort liability and comparative negligence, thereby understanding the nature of the agreement with the plaintiff and the above non-party 3, or contrary to the rules of evidence, thereby finding the contents of the agreement erroneous. The grounds for appeal are with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)