(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below finding the victim's negligence as 40%, even though the victim's negligence, who suffered an accident, is larger than the driver's negligence while crossing a motorway where the passage of the vehicle is frequent at night;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the victim's negligence was 40% compared to the driver's negligence while crossing a motorway where vehicle traffic is frequent at night and the driver's negligence caused by the accident is larger than that of the driver's negligence.

All remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below held that the defendant's duty of care to safely operate on both sides of the road has been negligent, and it is just to reject the defendant's above assertion, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the driver's duty of care on the driver's duty of care on the part of the road because the accident site frequently passes the road at a rapid speed due to the lack of delivery, but in the vicinity of the accident site, it can be anticipated that people walk the road without permission. Since the street lights on both sides of the road do not have any visual obstacle, it is hard to see that there is a negligence due to the fact that there is a duty of care to safely operate on both sides, and there is no error of law as to the mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence

2. On the second ground for appeal

With respect to the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by a tort, if the victim was negligent, such reason should be considered as a matter of course in determining the scope of compensation for damage by the perpetrator, and when calculating the ratio of negligence between the two parties, the situation related to the accident should be sufficiently considered in light of the purpose of the system of fair and reasonable allocation of damage. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio should not be considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity even if it is the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below erred in crossing the above road, which is an exclusive motorway, on the basis of the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of the accident as stated in its reasoning, and such negligence was caused by the driver's negligence of the above vehicle, and recognized the ratio of the negligence as 40 percent and offset the negligence.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the place where the accident of this case occurred is constructed so that only motor vehicles can move, and pedestrians can not walk or cross the road, and the above deceased was involved in the accident of this case while crossing the above road where vehicle traffic is frequent at night beyond the left side of the driving direction of the vehicle. Thus, the above deceased's negligence is larger than the driver's negligence. Furthermore, according to the records, the road where the accident of this case occurred is the 4th line road, and the road where the traffic of the vehicle is frequent, and the road is not installed on the road, and only the "drails" is installed. Thus, the court below's decision to consider the deceased's negligence as 40 percent as above is too low, and it is therefore unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Thus, there is a ground to point this out.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below recognized the fact that the deceased worked as an employee of the Samsung C&T company prior to the accident in this case, and continuously received a certain amount of annual leave allowance without using the previous annual leave, and determined that such amount of annual leave allowance should be based on the calculation of the actual income by deeming it reasonable to be a future future income that can be expected to continue to receive in the future. In addition, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the misconception of facts by violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the calculation of the actual income and the annual leave allowance. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant as to the plaintiff 1's property damage is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. The remaining appeal against the above plaintiff and the appeal against the remaining plaintiffs are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by