[2] The case holding that the standardized contract provisions concerning offsetting negligence apply to the calculation of the insurance amount pursuant to the injury clause caused by the non-insured automobile among the general contract terms of the personal automobile insurance

[3] The meaning of negligence in offsetting negligence

[4] The scope of the victim's fault in comparative negligence and the standard for determining the victim's fault

[5] The case holding that where a minor was living together with a mother designated as a person with parental authority due to the parent's divorce, but the father was involved in a traffic accident while the father was living together with the mother for adjudication, the negligence on the part of the father in calculating the insurance money for the minor shall be considered as the negligence of the victim in the calculation of the insurance money

[2] The case which provides that "the amount of damage caused by an accident caused by an accident caused by an non-insurance motor vehicle shall be limited to 100 million won per insured person (Article 41 (1) of the Terms and Conditions), the insurance money paid by the company shall be the amount obtained by deducting each of the following amount from the aggregate amount of the insurance money as set forth in Section 2 of the Terms and Conditions as set forth in Section 40 (Expenses) (Article 41 (2) of the Terms and Conditions, and the amount which can be paid by the deduction of large liability liability under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as one of the deduction items shall be set out in Section 4 of the Terms and Conditions, and the amount which is calculated by the deduction of liability as set forth in Section 4 of the same Table shall be set up in Section 2 as the amount calculated by the comparative liability insurance, Section 4 as the comparative liability insurance, Section 4 as the comparative liability, and the amount which is set-off by the set-off of liability shall be set out in Section 4 as the comparative liability."

[3] The tortfeasor's negligence in a tort is the strong negligence of the violation of duty, and the negligence in offsetting the victim's negligence, unlike the former, shall be deemed to refer to the weak meaning required for the principle of good faith and common life, in light of social norms, unlike the former.

[4] In determining the liability for damages caused by a tort and the scope thereof, the reason why the victim’s negligence is considered is to fairly share the damages caused by the tort between the perpetrator and the victim. Thus, the victim’s negligence should be taken into account not only the victim’s own negligence but also the negligence of a person who is in a relationship that forms a whole of his/her social status or social life. In any case, whether to be a relationship that constitutes a whole of his/her social status or social life should be determined by examining specific circumstances and determining whether to take into account the victim’s negligence into account the victim’s perspective

[5] The case holding that in case where a minor who is the victim of a traffic accident was living together with the mother designated as a person with parental authority due to the parent's divorce, but the father and the father were in contact with the mother at the time of the accident, and the father and the mother were carrying the body organs, including the minor and the mother, on board the body organs, including the mother, and the mother's funeral, and an accident occurred while the mother was in contact with the mother's funeral at the time of the accident, it is presumed that the minor was in contact with the mother at the time of the accident, and the minor was presumed to have been in full separate state between the female and the father at the time of the accident, and the perpetrator is ultimately responsible for the compensation liability when the perpetrator exercises his right to indemnity as the heir of the deceased father at the time of the accident. In light of the relation between the status and social life, it is reasonable to consider the minor's negligence on the part of the victim's driver's negligence in calculating the insurance amount under the personal automobile comprehensive insurance clause.

1. On the first ground for appeal

When the parties have concluded an insurance contract based on the insurance terms and conditions, the insurance terms and conditions are agreed to be included in the contents of the contract, and have binding force on the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da46153, Feb. 27, 1998; 96Da19307, Oct. 11, 1996).

In accordance with the record, the amount of injury clause applied at the time of this case is limited to 100 million won per insured person (Article 41(1) of the Terms and Conditions). Insurance money paid by the company is the aggregate amount of the amount calculated by adding the following amounts to the sum of the insurance money as provided in Section 2 of the Terms and Conditions in Table 1 and the expenses as provided in Section 40.(Expenses) of the Terms and Conditions (Article 41(2) of the Terms and Conditions, which is one of the deduction items, the amount that can be paid by the large-scale liability insurance I or responsibilities under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is listed, and the same clause is divided into Section 1 of the Terms and Conditions, Section 2 of the same Act, Section 4 of the same Act, and Section 4 of the same Act, Section 3 of the same Act, which provides that the amount of comparative negligence, such as offsetting damages, Section 4 of the same Act, and Section 4 of the same Act.

Compared to the above terms and conditions, the amount calculated by applying the item of "4. comparative negligence, etc." to the amount calculated by applying the item of "4. comparative negligence, etc." to the amount calculated by applying the item of "4. comparative negligence, etc." to "the amount calculated by applying the item of "the comparative negligence, etc." to "the amount calculated by applying the item of "the comparative negligence, etc." to "the amount calculated by applying the item of "the comparative negligence, etc." as of 2.

Although the court below did not have any improper aspect in its decision, in calculating the insurance money for the non-party and the plaintiff 2, the decision that calculated the insurance money by offsetting the amount of insurance money according to the standard for payment of insurance money as set forth in the attached Table 1 of the General Terms and Conditions of Insurance for Private Motor Vehicles is just in its conclusion, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the General

The ground of appeal on this point is rejected.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In a claim for damages due to a tort, the fact-finding or determination of the rate of comparative negligence is within the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da11440, Sept. 4, 1998; 95Da24340, Nov. 23, 1996). In a tort, the tortfeasor's negligence is a strong negligence that is a breach of duty, and the tortfeasor's negligence is a strong negligence, and the tortfeasor's negligence is in a comparative negligence that is based on the victim's negligence, contrary to the former's common sense, it refers to the weak meaning required for the good faith and common life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da52469, Feb. 26, 199; 92Da14687, Nov. 13, 1992).

After recognizing the facts related to the duty of care of the vehicle in question, the lower court determined that the Nonparty’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident in question was 50%. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the lower court’s findings of fact and determination are justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The argument in the grounds of appeal by this point is not accepted.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In determining the liability for damages caused by a tort and the scope thereof, the reason for taking into account the fault of the victim is to fairly share the damage caused by the tort between the perpetrator and the victim. Thus, the victim's negligence should be taken into account not only the victim's own fault but also the negligence of the person who is in a relationship that forms a whole of his/her social status or social life (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da26183, Nov. 12, 1996). In any case, the issue of whether the damage is a relationship that forms a whole of social status or social life should be determined by examining the specific circumstances and by examining whether it is reasonable for the victim to take into account the fault of the victim in the sense of fairness.

The records reveal that the non-party, who is the father of the plaintiff 2, was divorced from the non-party and the mother of the plaintiff 2, was designated as a person in parental authority. The plaintiff 2 is recognized to have been living together with the mother. Meanwhile, the age at the time of the accident is limited to 9 years and 5 months, and the non-party at the time of the accident was trying to combine with the mother of the plaintiff 2 at the time of the accident. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff 2 was in the body of the defendant 2, including the wife and the plaintiff 2, and the body of the defendant 2, were being aboard the body of the deceased at the time of the accident. Thus, it is presumed that the female at the time of the accident in this case and the father's body of the plaintiff 2 were not completely separate from the father and the couple at the time of the accident in this case. In light of the fact that the perpetrator's exercise the right of indemnity against the female's inheritance relationship, it is reasonable to consider the non-party 2's relationship with the non-party 2 or the plaintiff 2.

The court below is just in considering the non-party's negligence as the victim's negligence in calculating the insurance amount payable to the plaintiff 2. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principle of comparative negligence as alleged in the ground of appeal.

We do not accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)