[손해배상(자)][공1997.5.15.(34),1444]
[1] The case affirming the proximate causal relation between the act of cutting off obstacles and the occurrence of a traffic accident by damaging the view view of the modern network by taking a central separation zone
[2] The method of assessing the victim's negligence in a case where the victim's negligence in offsetting the victim's joint tort liability is different in proportion to each joint tortfeasor's negligence
[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that there is a proximate causal relation between the small act of withdrawing obstacles and the occurrence of the traffic accident by the fault of not operating the steering gear properly, on the ground that, in case where the driver driving on an expressway with a structure such as the central separation zone generally, is shocking the central separation zone due to the driver's error in driving, it is sufficiently foreseeable that the sculptures of the damaged central separation zone network may obstruct the road traffic, thereby causing the traffic accident
[2] Joint tort liability does not individually seek damages from each individual act of the tortfeasor, but is held liable for the tort jointly committed by the tortfeasor. The court, when offsetting the amount of negligence on the part of the victim, even if the ratio of negligence against each joint tortfeasor is different from each other, the victim's negligence shall not be individually assessed as the negligence against each joint tortfeasor, but shall be assessed as the whole as the negligence against all the joint tortfeasors.
[1] Articles 750 and 760 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 396, 760, and 763 of the Civil Act
[2] Supreme Court Decision 4293Da469 delivered on July 20, 1961 (Gong50, 728) Supreme Court Decision 90Da14423 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong191, 1601)
Rohee et al. and two others
Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.
Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 95Na22834 delivered on November 20, 1996
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.
1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant modernized marine insurance company.
A. On the first ground for appeal
On January 94, 194, Nonparty 1: (a) was able to operate the above-mentioned bus at the speed of 85 U.S. and caused the destruction of the above-mentioned bus at the end of 80 U.S. and caused the destruction of the above-mentioned bus at the end of 1:5 U.S. and caused the destruction of the above-mentioned bus at the end of 8:0 U.S. and caused the destruction of the above-mentioned bus at the end of 1:5 U.S. and caused the destruction of the vehicle at the end of 8:0 U.S. and caused the destruction of the vehicle at the end of 8:0 U.S. and caused the destruction of the vehicle at the end of 8:0 U.S. and caused the destruction of the vehicle at the end of 1:00 U.S. and caused the destruction of the vehicle at the end of 1:00 U.S. and caused the destruction of the vehicle at the end of 2:00 U.S.
B. On the second ground for appeal
Joint tort liability does not individually seek damages from each individual act of the perpetrator, but is held liable for the tort jointly committed by the perpetrator. In case of offsetting the fault of the victim, even if the court's negligence differs from each other, the fault of the victim does not individually evaluate the fault of each joint tortfeasor, but shall evaluate all of them as a whole (see Supreme Court Decisions 4293Da469 delivered on July 20, 1961 and 90Da14423 delivered on May 10, 1991).
In offsetting negligence based on the negligence as stated in its reasoning, although the court below decided that the ratio of negligence of the defendant modernized Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and the defendant Samsung Fire Marine Co., Ltd., which is the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, as to the occurrence of the accident of this case, is not the same, in light of the background of the accident of this case, details of the network and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's negligence, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence of all the above joint tortfeasor of the network Shin Shin Shin-chul as 40% is reasonable in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the ratio of negligence among the joint tortfeasors, such as
2. Next, we examine the plaintiffs' grounds for appeal.
The court below held that the annual leave compensation of the plaintiffs' assertion, excess work allowance of 23 hours after January 16, 1996 (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da54189 delivered on February 28, 1997) and regional cooperation publicity expenses are not included in benefits which form the basis for calculating lost income due to the lack of reasonable probability that they will continue to be paid. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to erroneous facts or estimated income due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, such as litigation, and there is no reason to see all the arguments.
3. All appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)