[손해배상(자)][공1991.1.1.(887),97]
(a) The case recognizing comparative negligence by 20% where a taxi passenger died of a traffic accident due to his/her failure to wear a safety belt without overworking the driver;
(b) Where it is possible to clearly predict the increase in the future, whether the loss equivalent to the lost income based on the increased salary, allowance, etc. is ordinary damage (affirmative)
A. The court below's decision is justified in finding the victim's fault ratio as 20/100 in case where the victim did not wear a safety belt even though he did not wear the safety belt even though he did not wear the safety belt even though he did not do so even though he was installed, even though he did not wear the safety belt, despite being aware of the fact that the victim's business taxi with the victim's excessive speed was highly likely to cause the occurrence of an accident because of the victim's excessive speed at night, and the same passengers were able to join the taxi as soon as possible.
(b) In calculating the lost income, if it is possible to predict clearly the increase of income, the basis for calculating the increased salary, local public official allowance rules, job allowances, fixed meal expenses, physical training expenses, etc. shall be deemed ordinary damage caused by tort and the calculation thereof, which is based on changes in the budget compilation guidelines of local governments.
A. Article 396(b) of the Civil Act; Articles 763 and 393
B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 88Meu6761 Decided December 26, 1989 (Gong1990, 1784) Decided April 10, 1990
Han Sang school et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
[Defendant-Appellant] Han-An Law Office (Law Firm Han & Yang, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 89Na23294 delivered on July 5, 1990
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.
1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on evidence, found that the deceased was aware of the fact that the business taxi going through the budget and Seosan at night was frequently at high risk of accident because of the fact that the deceased was frequently aware of the fact that the business taxi going through the budget and Seosan as well as the accident occurred at the time, and that the same passengers were forced to go together to the si in the accident of this case as soon as possible, and did not call for safe operation at a speed of 60 kilometers per hour, even though the above passengers were at a speed of 90 kilometers per hour, and did not call for safe operation even though the safety belt was installed, and the above deceased did not wear the safety belt. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to comparative negligence as pointed out, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence.
The Supreme Court's precedent is not appropriate, unlike this case. The argument is groundless.
2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.
In calculating the lost income of the deceased above, the court below deemed the salary raised prior to the closing of argument in this case, job allowances, fixed meal expenses, and physical training expenses, etc. to be the basis for calculating the amount of ordinary damages caused by the tort in this case, as the amount of ordinary damages caused by changes in the rules on allowances for local public officials, and the budget compilation guidelines for local governments. Thus, it is clear that the court below's aforementioned measures are clearly predicted that the increase in the amount of such income can be clearly predicted, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal (referring to the court below's decision 89Meu14639 delivered on July 24, 190; 89Meu28140 delivered on April 10, 199).
3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)