2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 353,224,142 won, 200,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from September 12, 2003 to July 6, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, according to the expansion of the purport of the claim in the trial.

3. The remainder of the plaintiffs' remaining appeals and the claims expanded from the trial of the plaintiff 1 are all dismissed.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be ten percent, and three percent shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 413,087,631 won, 10,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from September 12, 2003 to the date of the final judgment of the court of the first instance, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff 1 extended the principal part of the claim, and reduces the damages for delay from all the plaintiffs' claims).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 387,692,922, and 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff 2 and each of them shall be 5% per annum from September 12, 2003 to the date of the original judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

A. Grounds for liability

(1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 and 3, evidence 10, 11, 15, 17, evidence 18-6 through 9, 19-1 through 22, evidence 21-1 through 3, evidence 21-1 and witness of the first instance trial, and evidence 12, 16, and 17, evidence 12-1, 2, evidence 6-1 through 5, evidence 8, evidence 9-1 through 9, evidence 10-1, 13, evidence 14-2, evidence 15-1 and 2 of the first instance trial, evidence 17 against this, and evidence 12, evidence 5-1 and 3 of the above evidence 5-1, evidence 1-2, evidence 1-4, evidence 1-5, and evidence 1-2, evidence 1-5, and 1-3 of the witness evidence 1-2.

(A) At around 14:00 on September 12, 200, Nonparty 1 driven a passenger car (vehicle number omitted) and a passenger car (hereinafter “the instant passenger car”) with a three distance at the entrance of the ambling beach located in the ambling-dong at the time of the East Sea toward the area of the amban industrial complex at the northan Industrial Complex, and proceeded without examining the front bank and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right are infringed upon by Plaintiff 1, who was on the front of the instant passenger car and was on the front of the instant passenger car.

(B) Plaintiff 2 is Plaintiff 1’s ancillary, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the instant passenger vehicle.

(2) According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the passenger car of this case.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) 이에 대하여 피고는, ① 원고 1이 이 사건 사고 직후인 2003. 9. 12. 15:49경 최초로 후송된 동해성지병원 응급실에서 진찰을 받으면서 의료진에게 산에서 등산을 하다가 미끄러져 부상을 입었다고 진술하였고, 그 후 인근의 동해금강병원으로 후송되어 병실에 입실한 2003. 9. 12. 19:15경 담당간호사에게도 산에서 굴러 떨어져 부상을 입었다고 진술함으로써 그와 같은 내용으로 의무기록지가 작성되어 원고 1은 자동차보험환자가 아닌 의료보호환자로 분류되었고, ② 2003. 9. 19. 동해금강병원에서 작성된 원고 1에 대한 진단서에는 원고 1의 상해부위가 우 요·척골 개방성골절, 뇌진탕, 다발성 열상 및 좌상으로 기재되어 있는데, 원고 1이 이 사건 승합차의 조수석에 안전띠를 착용한 채 탑승하고 있었다면 위와 같은 부위에 상해를 입을 수는 없으며, ③ 이 사건 승합차의 운전석에 탑승하였다는 소외 1은 이 사건 사고일로부터 12일이 지난 2003. 9. 24.에야 비로소 서울 은평구 소재 참사랑병원에서 이 사건 사고를 이유로 진찰을 받으면서 머리에 관한 별다른 증상을 호소한 바 없어 단지 경부 및 요부 염좌상을 입은 것으로 진단을 받았고, ④ 이 사건 사고 후의 이 사건 승합차의 조수석 앞 유리창에는 아무런 충격의 흔적이 없는 반면, 운전석 앞 유리창은 파손된 흔적이 뚜렷이 있으며, ⑤ 이 사건 사고 발생 신고는 2003. 9. 13. 12:17경에야 비로소 피고에게 전화로 접수되었고, 경찰관서에는 신고조차 되지 아니하였는바, 이러한 사정들과 원고 1과 소외 1의 관계 등에 비추어 원고 1이 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 승합차의 조수석에 타고 있지 아니하였거나, 원고 1이 이 사건 승합차를 운전하다가 이 사건 사고가 발생하였다고 할 것이므로 피고는 이 사건 사고로 인한 손해배상책임을 지지 아니하거나, 이 사건 승합차에 관하여 체결된 자기신체사고 보상약정에 정하여진 지급한도 내에서만 손해배상책임을 질 뿐이라고 주장하나, ① 원고 1이 병원으로 후송되어 수상의 경위에 관하여 의료진에게 달리 진술하였다는 사정만으로는 그가 이 사건 사고 당시 이 사건 승합차의 조수석에 타고 있지 아니하였다거나 원고 1이 이 사건 승합차를 운전하였다고 단정할 수는 없을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 사고 시점은 사흘간의 추석 연휴 중 마지막 날로 그 전날인 2003. 9. 11. 16:00경 제14호 태풍 매미가 제주도에 이미 상륙하여 남해안 일대에 직접적인 영향을 미치고 있었고, 향후 경남 남해안을 거쳐 동해상으로 빠져나갈 것으로 예상되고 있었으며, 실제로 위 태풍은 이 사건 사고 발생일인 2003. 9. 12. 20:00경 경남 삼천포 부근 해안에 상륙하였는바, 이러한 기상상황하에서 태풍의 직접적 영향권 내에 있지 아니하였다 하더라도 등산을 한다는 것은 선뜻 납득하기 어렵고, ② 이 사건 사고로 원고 1이 입은 요·척골 개방성골절, 뇌진탕, 다발성 열상 및 좌상 등의 상해는 원고 1이 안전벨트를 착용한 채 조수석에 타고 있었다고 하더라도 이 사건 사고에서의 충격력의 방향, 이 사건 승합차가 전신주를 충돌할 때의 상태, 탑승자들의 충돌당시의 자세, 차량 유리창의 파손상태 등을 감안하면 충분히 나타날 수 있는 상해로 보이는 점, ③ 소외 1이 2003. 9. 24.경 참사랑병원에서 진찰을 받으면서 ‘동해시에서 운전 중 전봇대를 받았다, 머리를 유리에 박았다’라고 말하여 자신의 머리가 차량의 유리창에 부딪쳤다는 취지의 진술을 하였으나, 어지러움이나 메스꺼움 등의 증상을 호소하지 아니하여 뇌진탕 또는 뇌좌상 등의 진단이 내려지지는 아니한 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 원고 1은 고교시절 무렵부터 강직성 척추염을 앓고 있었을 뿐만 아니라 자동차운전면허증을 취득하거나 자동차를 보유한 사실이 없는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 사고 발생 접수가 신속히 이루어지지 아니한 점 및 원고 1과 소외 1의 관계 등을 감안한다 하더라도, 이 사건 사고는 앞서 본 바와 같이 소외 1이 이 사건 차량을 운행하다가 발생된 것으로 봄이 상당하다고 할 것이므로 피고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

(2) Next, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff 1 was on board the vehicle of this case without compensation, the plaintiff 1 did not urge the non-party 1, who is the driver of the bus of this case, to safely drive the vehicle of this case, the defendant's liability for damages should be limited. Thus, in the case where the driver of the vehicle permits the movement for the convenience and interest of the passengers without compensation, and the passenger was provided for the convenience and interest of the passengers, it is hard to recognize that the perpetrator is liable for damages like the general traffic accident in light of the good faith or the principle of equity if it is deemed that it is very unreasonable to impose the same liability on the perpetrator in light of the circumstances such as the purpose of the operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the driver, the situation where the driver was on board the vehicle of this case, and it is difficult to recognize that the non-party 1 was on board the accident of this case on the ground that the non-party 1 was on board the vehicle of this case on the ground that the non-party 1 was on board the accident of this case on the ground that the plaintiff 1's family.

(3) In addition, in light of the Plaintiff 1’s parts and degree of injury, etc., the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff 1 did not fasten the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and that the damage in this case was expanded, it should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damage that the Defendant should compensate for. However, the Defendant’s assertion that such ground alone does not lead to the conclusion that the Plaintiff 1 did not fasten the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the Plaintiff 1’s statement No. 18-22, it appears that the Plaintiff 1 was fastening the safety belt at the time of the instant accident. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is groundless.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

Based on the following facts and assessment details of the amount of actual income sustained by Plaintiff 1 due to the instant accident, it is 68,866,31 won if it is calculated as the present price at the time of the accident according to the discount method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the rate of 5/12 per month:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(A) Basic facts

Gender: Date of birth of male: February 15, 1953

Age at the time of accident: 50 years of age and 6 months;

Name of rental: 26.8

(B) Monetary assessment of operating capability: The plaintiff may obtain the income of ordinary workers by engaging in daily work every 2th day of a month until he reaches the age of 60. It is difficult to obtain the income of 52,374 won in September 200, 52,565 won in May 2004, 52,585 won in September 2004, 53,090 won in May 2005, and 55,252 won in September 2006, and 56,82 won in May 2006, and 57,820 in September 2006 (the plaintiff 1 did not obtain the income of 0,000 won in English as well as the income of 50,000 won in 10,000 won in 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 10,000 won or more in 20,000 won in 1.

(c)the rate of loss of occupational disability and labour capacity;

(1) 58% permanent disability in cases of 9-10: 58%.

(C) 42 percent of the contribution of the king witness diverse vertebrate;

Items 3-D of Mabrid Table 2, brain, and 3-D

(2) 5% permanent disability, such as dives of dives of divesives.

(3) Overlapping loss rate: 60.10%

【Ground of Recognition】 Evidence Nos. 19-1 and 2, results of physical examination commissioned to the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital at the court of first instance, results of fact inquiry, experience, significant facts, and purport of the whole pleadings

(2) Gyeyangsan: For the convenience of calculation, less than a month shall be counted in the side on which the assessed value is less than a month, and less than the last month and less than a won shall be discarded.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 기간 초일 기간 말일 노임단가 일수 월소득 상실률 m1 호프만1 m2 호프만2 m1-2 적용호프만 기간일실수입 1 2003-9-12 2004-4-30 52,374 22 1,152,228 60.10% 7 6.8857 0 0.0000 7 6.8857 4,768,271 2 2004-5-1 2004-8-31 52,565 22 1,156,430 60.10% 11 10.7334 7 6.8857 4 3.8477 2,674,207 3 2004-9-1 2005-4-30 52,585 22 1,156,870 60.10% 19 18.2487 11 10.7334 8 7.5153 5,225,229 4 2005-5-1 2005-8-31 53,090 22 1,167,980 60.10% 23 21.9199 19 18.2487 4 3.6712 2,577,020 5 2005-9-1 2006-4-30 55,252 22 1,215,544 60.10% 31 29.0980 23 21.9199 8 7.1781 5,243,903 6 2006-5-1 2006-8-31 56,822 22 1,250,084 60.10% 35 32.6081 31 29.0980 4 3.5101 2,637,139 7 2006-9-1 2013-2-14 57,820 22 1,272,040 60.10% 113 92.4391 35 32.6081 78 59.8310 45,740,562 8 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 일실수입 합계(원): 68,866,331

(b) Active damages;

(a) Expenses for medical treatment: 1,803,080 won;

(2) Costs of future treatment

(A) In addition, the Plaintiff is required to undergo a metal scrap removal procedure that requires KRW 2,500,000 due to the injury inflicted on the instant accident, and not only shall it undergo a brush correction and anti-sculing reduction procedure that cost KRW 8,450,000.

(b)Calculation;

Since there is no evidence that such expenses incurred in future treatment, etc. have been spent until the date of closing argument in the trial, it shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident, considering that such expenses are disbursed from the next day

The necessary treatment (amount required) (amount required) (1) the removal of fixed objects (amount 2,50,000 won 2,50,000 won 207-5-12,12,676 won (2) 8,450,00 won 207-5-12 447,140,845 won

(3) Nursing expenses

The Plaintiff is unable to walk in the state of the lower half-time paralysis, etc., and cannot properly take basic action necessary for daily life, such as the management of the lower half-time rain, and it is necessary to protect 6 hours a day from the date of the instant accident to the end of the life of all adults from the date of the instant accident. If the amount equivalent to the cost is calculated at the present price at the time of the accident, it is the total of 265,301,210 won.

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 기간초일 기간말일 개호비 단가 인원 월비용 m1 호프만1 m2 호프만2 m1-2 적용호프만 기간개호비 1 2003-9-12 2004-4-30 52,374 0.75 1,194,781 7 6.8857 0 0.0000 7 6.8857 8,226,903 2 2004-5-1 2004-8-31 52,565 0.75 1,199,139 11 10.7334 7 6.8857 4 3.8477 4,613,927 3 2004-9-1 2005-4-30 52,585 0.75 1,199,595 19 18.2487 11 10.7334 8 7.5153 9,015,316 4 2005-5-1 2005-8-31 53,090 0.75 1,211,115 23 21.9199 19 18.2487 4 3.6712 4,446,245 5 2005-9-1 2006-4-30 55,252 0.75 1,260,436 31 29.0980 23 21.9199 8 7.1781 9,047,535 6 2006-5-1 2006-8-31 56,822 0.75 1,296,251 35 32.6081 31 29.0980 4 3.5101 4,549,970 7 2006-9-1 2030-6-24 57,820 0.75 1,319,018 321 203.4938 35 32.6081 286 170.8857 225,401,314 8 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 9 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 10 ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ ？ 개호비손해 합계액(원): 265,301,210

【Reasons for Recognition】 Records of Evidence Nos. 9-1 through 6, the results of physical examination commissioned to the Chief of the Seoul National University Hospital at the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(c) Compensation money;

(1) Reasons for taking into account: All the circumstances shown in the arguments in the instant case, including the Plaintiff 1’s age and occupation, family relation, property level, and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of an accident.

(2) Amount of recognition: Plaintiff 18,000,000, and Plaintiff 22,000,000

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 353,224,142 won (property damages of 345,224,142 won + consolation money of 8,000,000 won) and 2,00,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and each of them is considered reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the defendant's duty of performance from September 12, 2003 to July 6, 2007, which is the date of the ruling of the first instance, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until July 6, 2007, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed for the plaintiff 1's remainder of the appeal and the judgment of the court of first instance to the defendant.

Judges Ahn Young-hun (Presiding Judge) and Cho Chang-hun;