[손해배상][집16(1)민,192]
Cases of being recognized as a joint tort by negligence of the number of vehicle drivers;
The fact that the Defendant Company A’s vehicle, which was followed by the Defendant Company A’s vehicle going against the victim on the crosswalks, was in excess of the victim’s body and died of the victim’s body, is a cause for the calendar that caused the victim to go beyond the victim’s body. As such, the foregoing negligence is a common cause for death.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 760 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Seoul Special Metropolitan City 1 other
Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1489 delivered on December 6, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1489 delivered on December 6, 1967
All of the plaintiffs' appeals and the defendants' appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively.
The plaintiffs' attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.
The court below's decision that set-off negligence in calculating the amount of damages suffered from a high-sex care by taking into account the negligence of neglecting the duty of care and custody as the legal representative of the plaintiff Go Sung-dong, his father in his reflects the death of the victim of this case, is legitimate, and the court below's decision that accepted the claim for the amount of damages calculated by adding to the shares of the plaintiffs, is justifiable, and there is no objection to the contrary, that it should be set-off only for the amount claimed by the plaintiff Go Sung-dong, which
The judgment on the second ground for appeal
There is no error in the court below's finding negligence in the care and custody as a legal representative of the victim's high-parent family in the accident of this case, and in the degree of offsetting the negligence of the court below. The appeal is groundless.
Judgment on the first ground for appeal by Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City attorney.
According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant 1's act of driving the above-mentioned vehicle and the non-party 1's negligence after the non-party 1's accident occurred on the non-party 2's own road or the non-party 1's accident of the non-party 1's own road and the non-party 1's accident of the non-party 1's own road and the non-party 2's accident of the non-party 1's own road and the non-party 1's accident of the non-party 1's own road and the non-party 2's accident of the non-party 1's own road and the non-party 3's accident of the non-party 1's own road and the non-party 2's accident of the non-party 1's own road and the non-party 2's accident of the non-party 1's own road are not enough to be found on the right side of the non-party 1's vehicle.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal No. 1 and No. 2 by the attorney of Defendant Geumsung Transportation Co., Ltd.
In this case, the court below's argument on the result of the victim's death is without merit, since the court below stated in the preceding paragraph that the defendant's driver's and negligence act and the driver's and negligence act belonging to the defendant gold transportation constitute a joint tort.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-dong (Presiding Judge)