[손해배상청구사건][고집1967민,362]
The number of operating days and maximum working age;
Persons who are healthy, shall be 300 days average per year, and 55 years of age.
Article 763 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and five others
Countries
Seoul Central District Court (66A4523) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 66Da4523)
(1) Of the original judgment with respect to the claims filed by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the defendant shall revoke to Plaintiff 1 the remainder of the judgment against the defendant, excluding the part in which the sum of KRW 285,00, KRW 117,500, KRW 117,500 for each of the plaintiffs 2, and KRW 3,500 for each of the above amounts, and KRW 205,000 for each of the above amounts, from May 29, 1966 to the full payment.
The above plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above cancellation are dismissed.
(2) The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.
(3) 소송비용중 원고 1, 2, 3, 4, 5와 피고 사이에 생긴 부분은 1,2심 모두 3분하여 ⅓은 피고의 부담으로 하고 ⅔는 위 원고들의 부담으로 하며 원고 6에 대한 항소로 인하여 생긴 부분은 피고의 부담으로 한다.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 615,510, KRW 30,00, KRW 264,320, and KRW 264,320 for each of the plaintiffs 2, and KRW 458,640 for each of the above amounts, and KRW 458,640 for each of the above amounts, and KRW 5% for each of the above amounts, from the day following the day when the copy gushe was served, to the full payment. Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution.
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
The judgment of both the first and second courts that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
(1) 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제6호증(판결), 같은 제7호증(검증조서), 원심증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 진정성립을 인정할 수 있는 갑 제2호증(사망진단서)의 각 기재내용을 종합하여 보면 육군 방첩교육대 소송부 소속 229호 2½톤 자동차의 운전병인 소외 2 상등병이 1966.4.15. 21:10경 소속부대 소외 3 중사가 운전하는 8369-교1호 ¼톤 자동차를 소외 4 상사(수송부 선임하사관)와 함께 타고 서울특별시 동대문구 청량리에 있는 옥호 미상의 맥주홀에 가서 술을 마신 다음 운전수 소외 3 중사가 만취하여 자동차운전을 할 수 없게 되었으므로, 동인을 운전대 옆자리에 태우고 소외 4 상사를 서울특별시 서대문구 성산동 산 40번지에 있는 집에까지 태워다 주기 위해 뒷자리에 태워 위 자동차를 운전하고 그곳을 출발, 같은날 22:10경 동대문구 숭인동 170번지 소재 동신나사점 앞에 이르렀을 때 전방 약 5미터 되는 지점 도로 우측변에서 성명 미상인이 좌측으로 도로를 횡단하고 있는 것을 발견하였으므로 그들의 앞을 지나 그대로 통과할 심산으로 속도를 줄임이 없이 약 40킬로미터(시속 35킬로지점)의 속도로 핸들을 왼쪽으로 돌리면서 자동차를 운전하고 가다가 그때 마침 왼쪽에서 오른쪽으로 길을 건너가고 있던 소외 5(당시34세)를 미처 발견치 못하고 자동차의 좌측앞 밤바로 충격, 지면에 전도시켜 이화여자대학교 의과대학 부속병원에 입원중 그 다음날 03:00경에 뇌, 복강 및 오른쪽 대퇴부출혈, 내출혈 등으로 사망케 한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 위 인정을 번복할만한 증거 없는바 소외 2의 위 자동차 운전행위는 외견상 군무수행으로 보기에 넉넉하고 소외 5의 위 사망은 소외 2가 좌우전방을 주시하지 않고 과속으로 자동차를 운전한 과실에 인한 것임이 분명하므로 피고는 그로 인한 손해를 배상하여 줄 책임있다 할 것이다.
(2) Therefore, in full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 3-1,2 (Simplified Life Table) without dispute over the passive amount of damages caused by the death of Nonparty 5, the facts that Nonparty 5 was a healthy woman born on December 10, 193, who was under 33 years of age at the time of death, average remaining life expectancy 35 years of age, and the average amount of 100,000 won per day by carrying out the act of cosmetics, etc., and the above behavior is sufficient to be deemed to have been 30 days of average per year and 55 years of age until the age of 50,000, respectively. Thus, it is sufficient to view that Nonparty 5 was able to have been able to reach the age of 55,00 per year until 25 years after the death of Nonparty 5.
However, the above annual income of KRW 150,00 is clear from the non-party 5's effort and mixed investment in technology, including the non-party 1,00,000, and even if the non-party 5 died due to the accident at issue, it does not lose its capital (the same result shall apply even if the non-party 5 consumes was made after the death as alleged by the plaintiff). The profit which can be easily obtained from the capital of KRW 150,000 shall be deducted from the loss of KRW 150,00,00. The above amount of KRW 100,000 shall be deducted from the total annual income of KRW 25,00,000, and the plaintiff shall be entitled to interest at the rate of KRW 25,000 annually if the deposit is made to the commercial bank (the defendant's assertion that it would be above the interest rate of KRW 25,000,000, the non-party 5's testimony at the time of death shall be excluded from the purport of the non-party 5's testimony.
150,000-25,000 won-(3,000 won x 12) =89,000 won
89,000 won ¡¿ 14.580629 =1,297,625 won
However, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 7 (Verification Report) from the front, when crossing the road where the traffic of vehicles is frequent, the victim non-party 5, also has a duty of care to cross the road according to the crossing route. However, it is sufficient to recognize that there was negligence of crossing a point other than the crossing route by neglecting the above duty of care, and that there was an excessive access to the vehicle. Therefore, in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, it shall be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant. Considering the degree of negligence, the passive amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant shall be determined at KRW 70,000.
그리고 전현 갑 제1호증(호적등본)에 의하면 원고 1은 소외 5의 남편이고 원고 2, 4는 딸이며, 원고 3과 원고 5는 아들로서 위 소외인의 공동상속인들인 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 피고는 위 인정의 금 700,000원을 상속분에 따라 원고 1, 3, 5(각2/8)에게 각 금 175,000원씩 원고 2와 원고 4(각⅛)에게는 각 금 87,500원씩 나누어 지급할 의무있다.
(3) The following facts are examined as to the plaintiff 1's property damage: Gap evidence No. 4-1 (a receipt), Eul evidence No. 5-2 (a receipt), Gap evidence No. 4-2 (a receipt) which may be admitted as genuine by the non-party 7's testimony; Eul evidence No. 4-3 (a receipt) which may be admitted as genuine by the non-party 8's testimony; Eul evidence No. 4-4 (a receipt) which could be admitted as genuine by the non-party 6's testimony; Eul evidence No. 4-4 (a receipt) which could be admitted as genuine by the non-party 6's testimony; Eul evidence No. 5-4 (a statement) which could be admitted as genuine by the non-party 10's testimony; Eul evidence No. 4-5 (a statement) which could be admitted as genuine by the non-party 10's testimony; and Eul evidence No. 6 (a statement of the non-party 1) which could be admitted as evidence No. 6-1's. 7 (a evidence No. 6).
(4) Finally, upon examining the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money against the non-party 5's husband, non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5's children who died from the accident at this case, according to the evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1) of the non-party 5's husband and the non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5's children, and without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff 6 can recognize the facts of the non-party 1's child in the same family register. According to the non-party 6 of the court below's witness and non-party 13's testimony of the non-party 5's witness non-party 6 and the non-party 13, it can be recognized that the plaintiffs suffered considerable mental distress due to the non-party 5's witness's death, and the defendant is liable to give consolation money to the above plaintiff 1 in cash. Therefore, considering the plaintiffs' age, family relations, and the degree of their academic background and negligence recognized before the plaintiff 1's argument.
(5) Thus, the plaintiffs' principal claim against the defendant is justified within the limit of seeking a payment of the amount of five percent per annum from May 29, 1966 to full payment, and the remainder is actually dismissed. Since the original judgment on the claims of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 20,00 won for plaintiffs 6, 200 won for plaintiffs 2, 4, 117,500 won for plaintiffs 3, 5, and 205, 50 won for each plaintiff 3, 550 won for each of the above recognition, and the next day after the copy was delivered to the plaintiff 3,55,00 won for each of the above recognition was just, and the remaining part is just within the limit of seeking payment of five percent per annum from May 29, 1966 to the full payment. Accordingly, since the original judgment on the claims of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3,4, and 5 reached a different conclusion, it is dismissed as to the plaintiff 6's claim for revocation.
Judges Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Judge)