2. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 2 an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from November 1, 1973 to the full payment rate of KRW 1,770,203 and KRW 6,937,989.

3. The defendant Korea Highway Corporation and the defendant 2 corporation jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1 corporation an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from November 1, 1973 to the full payment of 1,953,440 won.

4. All appeals filed by the plaintiff 1 corporation and the defendants are dismissed.

5. The costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff 2 and the defendants shall be borne by the defendants in both the first and second instances, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 corporation and the defendants shall be borne by each of them.

6. The judgment of this court and the judgment of the court below on the cited amount of the plaintiffs can be provisionally executed.

Paragraph (2) of this Article shall be as follows.

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is revoked. The Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs in both the first and second instances.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 3호증(교통사고증명서), 6호증(판결) 원심증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 각 그 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 1호증(진단서), 5호증(추가진단서), 7호증(공사재료목록)의 각 기재와 원심에서의 현장검증과 원심 및 당심에 있어서의 각 문서검증결과(다음에 믿지 아니하는 부분 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 보면, 소외 2는 피고 2 주식회사 소속 충북 영 5-2248호 고속뻐스운전자로서 1972.11.24. 20:30경 위 뻐스에 승객 35명을 태우고 청주시를 출발하여 서울로 향하여 진행하던중 같은날 21:20경 충북 청원군 옥산면 오산리 소재(서울 기점 116.2키로미터 지점) 미호천교부근에 이르렀는데, 당시 위 고속뻐스보다 앞서 미호천교를 통과하던 소외 3이 운전하던 (차량번호 생략) 피아트 승용차가 노면이 얼어붙어 미끄러지면서 브레이크를 밟아 주행선을 가로막아 정차하자, 그뒤 약 30미터 거리를 두고 뒤따라 가던 소외 4가 운전하는 (차량번호 생략) 크라운 택시가 당황한 나머지 급정차하다가 역시 미끄러지면서 위 피아트택시를 충격하여 위 미호천교 상행 주행선을 완전히 가로막아 서게 되었고, 마침 그때 소외 5가 (차량번호 생략) 광주고속뻐스를 운전하고 주행선상을 따라 서울쪽으로 향하여 서행중인 (차량번호 생략) 추럭의 뒤를 시속 70키로미터의 속도로 진행하다가 위 추럭의 약 100미터 가량의 거리에 이르러 이를 추월하려고 주행선으로 좌회전하여 진행하면서 약 10미터 거리까지 접근하였을 무렵 위 화물추럭이 위에서 본 바와 같은 택시충돌사고로 가로막힌 주행선을 피하기 위하여 추월선으로 접어들자 이를 뒤쫓아 가면서 위 뻐스의 우측 앞 밤바로 화물추럭의 좌측 후미를 충격하는 사고를 일으켰는 바, 피고 2 주식회사 소속 운전자 소외 2는 미호천교에 시속 약 80키로미터의 속도로 진입하다가 사고가 났으니, 추월선으로 서행하라는 수신호를 받고 약 40미터 전방에서 위와 같은 연쇄충돌사고로 인한 진로장애를 발견하고 과속으로 운행해오던 탄력과 얼어붙은 노면때문에 급정차할 수 없을 것이라고 판단하고 이를 피하기 위하여 높이 10센치미터의 중앙분리대를 일부 넘어 하행선 노선으로 진입하다가(우측 바퀴가 넓이 2.5미터의 중앙분리대를 타고 진행하였다) 우회전하여 다시 중앙분리대를 넘어오려고 하는 찰나에 하행선 중앙부분(추월선과 진행선의 중간지점)을 따라 부산쪽으로 운행하고 있던 소외 6이 운전하는 피고 3 주식회사 소속 충북 영 7-8071호 화물자동차의 좌측 전면부분을 위 뻐스의 좌측 후미부분으로 충격하여 위 화물자동차 조수석에 타고 있던 화주인 원고 1 주식회사 직원 원고 2에게 전두골 함몰 골절등의 중상을 입히고 위 화물자동차에 싣고 있던 별지목록 기재 물건들을 파손시켰는 바, 위 사고원인을 보면 본건 사고 당일은 낮부터 눈비가 내렸으나 날씨가 푸근하여 대부분 녹아버렸기 때문에 차량통행에 별다른 지장이 없었으나 밤이 되면서부터 기온이 많이 내려가 특히 위 사고지점인 교량부분의 노면이 얼어붙어 빙판을 이루었는 바, 이러한 경우 고속도로를 관리운영하는 피고 한국도로공사로서는 교량부분은 지열이 없는 관계로 특히 얼어붙기 쉽고, 교량부분을 제외한 도로부분은 빙판이 생기지 않아 통행에 지장이 없기 때문에 고속으로 운행하던 차량들이 교량부분을 통과하다가 빙판때문에 사고를 일으킬 우려가 많으므로 사전에 모래나 염화칼슘등을 뿌려 빙판이 생기지 않도록 조치를 취하여야 하고, 본건과 같이 이미 빙판이 생긴 경우에는 적어도 한시간 정도의 간격으로 모래와 염화칼슘등을 충분히 뿌려 빙판을 제거하는 등 안전사고를 미연에 방지하는데 필요한 제반조치를 취하여야 하는 것인데, 피고 한국도로공사는 이미 빙판이 형성된 이후인 오후 6시경부터야 소외 염시동등 인부 3명과 손수레 1대만을 배치하여 위 인부들은 오후 6시부터 7시경까지 사이에 길이 400여미터가량의 위 교량에 일차로 모래와 염화칼슘등을 뿌리고 나서 장비와 인원이 부족하여 오후 9시가 지나기까지 약 2시간여 동안 다시 빙판제거 조치를 취하지 않은 까닭에 위 미호천 교량부분이 다른 고속도로 부분보다 특히 미끄러워서 고속도로를 정상적인 속도로 진행하던 차량들이 교량부분에 접어들면서 갑자기 미끄러워진 노면때문에 연쇄적으로 충돌하는 사고를 일으켜 진로를 가로막게된 때문일 뿐만 아니라, 또 피고 2 주식회사 소속 운전자 소외 2로서는 본건과 같이 푸근한 날씨에는 눈비가 섞여 내리더라도 대부분 녹아버리기 때문에 통행에 별다른 지장을 주지않지만 야간에는 기온이 많이 내려가 교량부분은 특히 얼어붙기 쉽고 또 앞도 잘 보이지 아니하므로 교량을 통과함에 있어서는 노면이 미끄러워 정거가 잘되지 아니할 것에 대비하여 전방을 주의깊게 살피면서 앞차와 상당한 거리를 유지함은 물론 제한속도인 시속 60키로미터 이하로 속도를 줄여 서행하는 등 불의의 돌발사고에 대비하여야 함에도 불구하고 이러한 조치를 취하지 아니한 채 시속 약80키로미터의 과속으로 교량을 통과하다가 약 40미터 거리에 이르러서야 비로소 위와 같은 전면의 진로장애를 발견하고(전방투시거리는 80 내지 90미터였다) 급정거하지 못하고 이를 피하기 위하여 중앙분리대를 일부 넘어서 운행한 잘못으로 인한 것이었다고 할 것이고, 위 인정에 어긋나는 당심증인 소외 7, 8 및 원심증인 소외 9의 각 일부증언과 원심 및 당심에 있어서의 각 문서검증결과중의 일부는 믿을 수 없고, 을 3호증(판결)의 기재만으로서는 위 인정을 뒤집을 자료로서는 부족하고 달리 반증이 없다.

Thus, the above accident was caused by a defect in the installation and maintenance of an expressway managed by the defendant Korea Highway Corporation, a tort committed by the employees related to the above defendant Corporation in the course of performing their duties, and a tort committed by the driver non-party 2 belonging to the defendant 2 in the course of performing duties. Thus, the defendant Korea Highway Corporation and the defendant 2 corporation are jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to

The plaintiffs' legal representative asserted that the driver of the defendant 3 corporation was jointly liable for the physical damage suffered by the plaintiff 1 corporation due to the above accident and the damages caused by the physical injury caused by the plaintiff 2, while driving the bridge with snow ice and ice ice well, the non-party 6 did not neglect due care concerning the transportation of the non-party 6, and the defendant 3 corporation did not have any other duty of care to the non-party 8's attorney to believe that the non-party 6 did not have any other duty of care to the transportation of the motor vehicle. Thus, in light of the case of the above recognition mark, the defendant 3 corporation did not have any other duty of care to the non-party 6's testimony to the non-party 8, since it did not have any other duty of care to the non-party 3 corporation to the defendant 6, the defendant's legal representative did not know that the non-party 6 did not have any duty of care to the transportation of the motor vehicle in the front way of the non-party 3 corporation.

Therefore, under the premise that the above accident was also caused by the non-party 6's illegal act of the non-party 3's driver non-party 6's negligence, the claim against the defendant 1 corporation against the defendant 3 corporation is groundless without determining the remainder.

However, according to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, in a case where a person who operates an automobile for his own sake is killed or injured by the passenger due to the operation, he is liable for damages except for the case where the death or injury of the passenger was caused by the passenger’s intentional act or suicide, and it is apparent in light of the above facts acknowledged that the injury was not caused by his intentional act or suicide. Thus, Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. is jointly and severally liable with other Defendants as to the above physical injury suffered by the plaintiff 2 as a person who operates the above truck for his own sake.

2. Calculation on the compensation amount;

(1) In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 (List of Construction Materials) and the testimony of the above witness and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the examination of each of the above documents, which are acknowledged as genuine by the testimony of the non-party 1 of the court below, the plaintiff 1 corporation entrusted the transportation of the electrical equipment and construction materials in the attached list No. 10,000 won to the defendant 3 corporation. The above accident caused damage to the plaintiff 1,953,440 won, which is its value.

(2) In full view of the following evidence Nos. 4 (No. 4), Gap evidence No. 8-12 (the starting point and content of wage set) and evidence No. 9 (Simplified Life Table), Gap evidence No. 2 (the career certificate) deemed genuine by the testimony of non-party 1, the witness of the court below, and the testimony of non-party 10, the above witness of the court below and the witness of the court below, as well as the whole purport of the oral argument, are considered as evidence No. 24 years old at the time of the accident, and the average male number at this age was 49 years old, and the average male number at this age was 45,00 won for the plaintiff 1 corporation at the time of the accident, and the amount was 45,00 won monthly paid to the non-party 1, and then the above witness and the witness of the court below were 10,000 won, and the average labor ability of 15% old and 15% old as the average labor engineer at the time of the accident and 15% old 197.5% old.

Therefore, if there was no accident, he may obtain the net income of KRW 42,200 in the balance obtained by deducting KRW 2,800 from the income tax of the small-term income tax at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at KRW 45,00,00 of the monthly gross income after continuing to engage in the above occupation 73 years of age or older without this accident. This accident would result in the loss of KRW 11,062 per month in proportion to 59 percent of the remaining labor ability ( KRW 750 x 259/100, KRW 31,138 ( KRW 42,11,062) per month due to this accident x 31,00 won per month in the amount of KRW 31,138 ( KRW 42,200-11,062) x 13,000 per month in the calculation of the interim income at KRW 31,531,000 per month after the retirement of the plaintiff 193,2315.7.

In addition, the consolation money for the mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff 2 as a wound of the accident in this case is recognized to be reasonable if it is 200,000 won in consideration of the course of the accident in this case as seen earlier, the parts and degree of the injury, the plaintiff's academic background, career, and other circumstances revealed by the non-party 1's testimony by the non-party 1 witness at the court below.

(3) In this context, each attorney of the defendant 3 corporation and the Korea Highway Corporation claimed that the plaintiff 2 would receive a total of KRW 744,808,00 from medical care benefits and temporary disability compensation benefits and deduct them from the amount of compensation. However, if the whole purport of the pleading is added to the statement of Eul evidence (Insurance Benefit Ledger) without any dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff 2 did not claim damages from September 9, 1973 to March 2, 1973, 196,608, which was the aggregate of medical care benefits for 99 days from September 24, 1972 to March 2, 1973, the plaintiff 2 did not claim damages from the above 3rd medical care benefits for 19 days from March 31, 1972 to March 25, 1973, the plaintiff's claim for damages from the above 1971 et al., al., the plaintiff's claim for damages from the above 1973rd damages.

3. Accordingly, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff 2 for damages arising from the accident, which is equivalent to 6,937,989 won in total as above (6,737,989 won +200,000 won in total) and damages at the rate of 5% per annum, which is the civil legal interest rate, from November 1, 1973 to the full payment system, after the accident occurred, and the defendant Korea Highway Corporation and the defendant 2 corporation jointly and severally liable to pay damages at the rate of 1,953,440 won in full and from the above date to the full payment system. Accordingly, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages at the rate of 1,953,440 won in full and from the above date to the plaintiff 1 corporation. Accordingly, the plaintiff 2's above claims against the defendant 3 corporation and the defendant 2 corporation are all justified, and the plaintiff 36 of the Civil Procedure Act's provisional execution against the defendant 3 corporation is dismissed as well.

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Byung-gu (Presiding Judge)