The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 7,355,838 and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5 percent per annum from March 16, 1974 to the full payment date;

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) the amount of 1,178,400 won and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5 percent per annum from December 21, 1973 to the date of full payment.

All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on the remainder of the counterclaim and the counterclaim are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances shall be divided into three parts through the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, and the first and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the other costs by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The above Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed only for the portion exceeding the money of the original judgment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the other party and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

1. The reason for determining the cause of the liability for damages of this case is that a member of the party is the same as that of the original judgment in addition to the fact that the part of the testimony of Nonparty 1 and 2 and the result of the on-site inspection of the party, among the reasons, should be employed, and the rejection of part of the testimony of Nonparty 2 and 3 of the party witness is the same as that of the original judgment. Accordingly, it is cited as it is by Article 390

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendant company should compensate for the damages suffered by the victims of the deceased non-party 5 and the attached list because of their operation as a person operating a motor vehicle for their own own own, or as to the internal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant company, the plaintiff and the defendant company shall be liable for the damages suffered by the victims according to their internal burden ratio. Further, the plaintiff and the defendant company shall be liable for the damages suffered by the other party due to the tort committed by their employees, and the plaintiff shall be liable for the damages suffered by the other party and the defendant company shall be deemed to be the plaintiff and the defendant company's joint liability for the victims due to the above joint tort, or for the amount of compensation for each other, it shall be reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence between the two parties to be considered as the plaintiff and the defendant 7.

2. Damages;

(1) As to the amount of damages suffered by a third party: The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 7 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 7's testimony acknowledged by the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 7's testimony acknowledged by the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony acknowledged by the non-party 7 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6's testimony acknowledged by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 7's testimony acknowledged by the non-party 1 and the non-party 12.

However, although the plaintiff's attorney paid 974,050 won to the injured passengers and the inpatients of this case as food non-legal principles, it cannot be viewed that there was a causal relationship between this case's accident and this case's accident, unless there is any proof on the fact that the above food expenses were especially necessary for the treatment of the patient, even if the above food expenses were not covered by this accident. Thus, even if the expenses were paid for domestic affairs, it shall be deemed that the defendant company cannot be compensated for it.

Therefore, since the above damages paid by the plaintiff and the defendant to a third party were jointly exempted due to the expenses of each period, if the amount of compensation is calculated in accordance with the percentage of negligence acknowledged earlier (Plaintiff 3: Defendant shall pay 6,064,240 won (8,663,200 x 7/100) out of the above Do joint-exempt damages of the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff shall pay 183,000 won (610,000 won) out of the above 610,000 won which the defendant jointly discharged.

(2) As to the plaintiff company's damages, in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 9-16-2 and the above witness and non-party 21's testimony which are acknowledged to have been authenticity by the non-party 6's testimony, Gap evidence 16-1 and 2-1 of the above witness and the above witness's testimony and the whole purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff company shall disburse 65,000 won to the non-party 671,50 won for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, 677,640 won for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, 877,640 won for 40 days after the accident, 300 won for the repair cost of the above damaged vehicle, and the above plaintiff's vehicle can not be operated for 40 days after the accident (Provided, That the number of days during the repair period, 30 days after the completion of the repairs period 】 30 days after the plaintiff 20 days's average profits can be recognized as 30 days after the completion of the above evidence.

In addition to the towing and removal expenses of the above vehicle, the Plaintiff’s attorney again spent a sum of KRW 365,630 (430,630-65,00) with the expenses for the transportation of patients, the expenses for the contact with the victim and the expenses for contact with the patient. However, there is no data to accept the expenses for the contact with the patient, and there is no data to accept the expenses for the contact with the patient. The expenses for the contact with the agreement is deemed reasonable, and it is deemed that the expenses for the contact with the vehicle are particularly necessary, and thus, the Plaintiff’s attorney’s above assertion is not acceptable.

Thus, the plaintiff company suffered losses of 1,845,140 won (65,00 + 671,500 + 877,640 + 640 + 231,00) due to the above accident, and considering the negligence of the plaintiff recognized earlier, it is obvious that the amount of damages that the defendant is liable to compensate is 1,291,598 won [1,845,140 x 1-3/10].

(3) As to the Defendant Company’s damages, in full view of the aforementioned witness’s testimony and Nonparty 20’s testimony as to each of the above evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 2, each of the above evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the authenticity of which is recognized by Non-Party 22’s testimony of Non-Party 23, the Defendant Company lost 10,000 won on an average of 10,000 won on a daily basis since it operated the following facts: (a) comprehensively takes account of the following facts: (b) the cost of repairing the truck destroyed by the instant accident; (c) the cost of repairing the truck destroyed by the instant accident; (d) the cost of repairing the truck; and (d) the number of running days per month is 25 days; and (e) there was no dispute between the parties, so the Defendant Company lost 100 days (25 days) 】 100,000 won and 100 won.

However, the defendant's attorney, however, means that the above defendant's representative, as a part of a Japanese-processed product, imports and repairs the accessories thereof from Japan, requires 218 days if they are unable to operate during that period. However, it is not proved that the repair of the defendant's vehicle requires repair in excess of the ordinary repair period due to special circumstances. Thus, in this case where there is no proof that the plaintiff's company knew or could have known it, the defendant's assertion that the repair period was exceeded the above ordinary repair period, which is based on the premise that the above repair period was more than the above ordinary repair period, is not accepted.

Therefore, the defendant company suffered losses of 3,318,00 won (2,318,00 + 1,000 + 00,000) due to the above accident. Thus, considering the defendant's negligence above, it is obvious that the amount of the plaintiff's compensation to the defendant is 95,400 won (3,318,000 x 1-7/10).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of five percent per annum from December 21, 1973 to the date of completion of the accident as well as 7,35,838 won (6,064,240 + 1,291,598) which the plaintiff recognized as the plaintiff, on the records that the plaintiff's request is obviously the next day from March 16, 1974 to the date of completion of the above recognition (1,178,400 + 183,00 + 95,400) and the next day after the accident, which is obviously the next day after the defendant's request, and the plaintiff's main claim for counterclaim and the defendant's claim for delay are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and all of them are modified within the scope of the above recognition, and there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal as 960,000 won, and there is no reason to reject it, as it is different from the judgment of the court below.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)