2. B

3. C

[Judgment of the court below]

Law Firm Name, Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 20% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On December 20, 2018, E driving a F vehicle owned by it (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) around 04:50 on December 20, 2018, and driving the H road located in the Heung-gu G at the seat of the hotel located in the Cheongju-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul, by moving back the H road to the high speed terminal room. On the other hand, E, on the right side of the instant vehicle riding along the bicycle, was killed (hereinafter “J”) by shocking the J, which opened the crosswalk without signal lights from the right side of the instant vehicle to the left side (hereinafter “J”).

2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract regarding the instant vehicle.

(b) Occurrence of liability;

According to the above facts, E is responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident as the operator of the instant vehicle, and the Defendant is liable for compensating for such damages as the insurer of the instant vehicle.

C. Limitation on liability

망인이 안전모를 착용하지 않은 채 자전거를 타고 신호등 없는 횡단보도를 건넜고, 이 사건 사고 시각이 새벽이므로 망인으로서도 주위를 잘 살펴 안전하게 횡단보도를 건너야 하는데 이를 게을리 한 잘못이 있는바, 이는 이 사건 사고 발생 및 손해의 확대에 기여하였으므로, 망인의 과실을 20%로 참작하여, 피고의 책임을 80%로 제한함이 상당하다.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 3, the facts not clearly asserted, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of liability for damages

In principle, the period of the calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than won shall be discarded. The current price calculation at the time of the accident of the amount of damages shall be governed by the simple interest rate that deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month. And it shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 6, each entry of Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings, the fact that there is no dispute, and the rule of experience

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

1) Personal information: To be stated in the corresponding part of the damage calculation sheet in attached Form.

(b) Income, operating days, and operating periods: The daily wage of the ordinary urban workers, the 22th day of each month, and the 65 years of age;

[The defendant asserts that the monthly working days of an ordinary urban group should be 15 days based on the changed statistical data. However, if the deceased did not die, the monthly working days are one element of calculating the present price at the time of the accident in this case. The changed statistical data is to be based on the changed statistical data, not only the monthly working days but also the changed statistical data, such as the maximum working age, monthly income increase rate, living cost, and the present rate, and if calculated based on the changed statistical data, it can rather distort the calculation of the daily operating income. In light of the fact that the calculation of the changed statistical data, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted merely by the descriptions in the evidence No. 1 or No. 7.

(c) Deductions for living expenses: 1/3;

(b) Funeral expenses: 5,00,000 won (Plaintiff A).

(c) Limitation on liability: 80%;

(d) Mutual Aid: 1,115,792 won out of the amount of 5,578,960 won of the deceased’s medical expenses paid by the Defendant, equivalent to 20% of the value of the deceased’s negligence.

(e) consolation money;

1) Reasons for consideration: The circumstances and results of the instant case, and all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the Deceased and the Plaintiffs’ age.

2) The amount recognized

(1) Deceased: 60,000,000 won

② Plaintiff A: 8,000,000 won

③ Plaintiff B and C: 4,000,000 won each

[The defendant asserts that the bereaved family members of the deceased receive KRW 30,00,000 from E, and thus, it should be considered in the calculation of the above data. However, according to the evidence No. 8, the above agreement amount is clearly stated that it is an amount separate from the claims of the deceased and the plaintiffs for the payment of insurance proceeds to the defendant, the bereaved family members of the deceased's right to claim the payment of insurance proceeds against the defendant, which may arise therefrom, are taken over by the deceased's bereaved family members, and if it is considered as the grounds for consolation, the defendant obtains unjust benefits, the above agreement amount shall not be considered in the calculation of consolation money.

(f) Inheritance;

3/7 of the deceased's claim for property damage and consolation money, the plaintiff A, and 2/7 respectively, respectively, succeeded to the rest of the plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 59,634,501, each of which is KRW 95,451,752, Plaintiff B, and C, as well as each of their respective amounts, 59,634,501, which is the date of the instant accident, from December 20, 2018 to February 12, 2020, which is the date of the instant judgment, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

The plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are groundless.