[손해배상등청구사건][고집1974민(1),334]
The profit of a person who runs a high-water screening business at the time of the accident.
At the time of the accident, the daily profit of a person who operates a sales and repair business of electric festivals, radio, television or such with a store with a store at the time of the accident shall be calculated on the basis of the remaining amount after deducting ordinary expenses related to the management of the store such as the cost of the shop, the cost of electricity and the cost of the water supply of electricity, etc., which are employed from the sales and repair profits.
Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act
68Da1559 decided Nov. 5, 1968 (No. 6183) (No. 750(123)52 of the Civil Act)
Plaintiff 1 and four others
Korea
Busan District Court (73 Gohap436)
The original judgment shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 900,000, KRW 850,000 to the plaintiff 2, and KRW 2,450,00 to the plaintiff 3, KRW 1,650,00 to the plaintiff 4, KRW 1,650,00 to the plaintiff 5, and the amount of KRW 1,650,00 to the plaintiff 5 and the amount of KRW 5 percent per annum from June 28, 1973 to the date of full payment.
The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the defendant and the remainder by the plaintiffs.
The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 2,094,879 won, gold 1,792,179 won, gold 4,776,537 won to the plaintiff 3, gold 3,284,358 won to the plaintiff 4, gold 3,284,358 won, gold 3,284,358 won to the plaintiff 5, and the amount equivalent to 5 percent per annum from the following day of service to the date of completion (the plaintiff shall reduce part of the claim at the trial).
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.
On October 25, 1972, 13:00, the victim of this case, died of the non-party 1 who was the victim of the above accident due to shock on the road of the non-party 5 (Judgment) who was the victim of the above case and was charged with 2 + (1/2) tons of the deceased's vehicle in the front of the U.S. P. P., there is no dispute between the parties, and No. 4 (A's certificate of vehicle accident), No. 13 (14), No. 15 (Certified Copy of Inspection Protocol), No. 16-1, 2 (Certified Copy of Statement Protocol), and No. 17 (Judgment) of the court below, and after the non-party 2's testimony of the above witness, the non-party 1 was unable to be established by the testimony of the above non-party 2, and the purport of the testimony of the above witness's vehicle in the front of the No. 192 (U.S. 2901).M.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the operation of a motor vehicle on his own as provided in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act. Meanwhile, in light of the evidence revealed in the above, the deceased non-party 1 ceases to stop a bicycle on the street coming from many vehicles, and only spons the three-wheeled vehicle in the accident, and only spons the three-wheeled vehicle in the accident, but did not know the fact that the accident occurred due to the failure to avoid the accident, so even if the negligence of the non-party 1 does not reach the degree of exemption from the defendant's liability, it should be considered in determining the liability for damages.
나아가 손해액에 관하여 보건대, 먼저 재산상의 손해에 관하여 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(호적등본), 갑 제7호증(점포소재증명원) 갑 제10호증(납세실적증며원), 갑 제11호증의 1,2(간이생명표표지 내용), 갑 제19호증(면허세납세증명서), 원심증인 이 입중의 증언에 의하여 성립을 인정할 수 있는 갑 제9호증의 1,2(수입 및 지출입증서), 갑 제12호증의 1 내지 4(각 영수증)의 각 기재와 원심증인 소외 2, 5의 각 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 망 소외 1은 1932.12.23.생으로서 이건 사고당시 연령은 만39세 2개월이고 이 나이에 우리나라 남자의 평균여명은 25.81년인 사실, 위 망인은 사고당시 점포(상호 대창소리사)를 가지고 고물상영업허가를 얻어서 전축, 라디오, 텔레비젼등의 판매수리업에 종사하므로서 매월 총 168,000원 이상의 수입이 있었으나 점원 1명을 고용하여 월 20,000씩의 급료를 지급하는 이외에도 전기료, 수도값등 점포경영에 관련된 경상비로서 매월 14,000원이 소요되므로서 동인이 위 점포를 경영하여 얻는 실제수입은 매월 134,000원인 사실, 위 망인은 원고소송대리인이 스스로 공제를 구하는 바와 같이 매월 최소한도 10,000원 정도의 생활비를 필요로 하고 또 위 영업에 관련된 제세금으로서 월 2,104원의 개인영업세(망인의 1972년도 2기분 개인영업세 12,623원을 6으로 나누고 원 미만을 반올림한 수치 ) 소득세로서 매월 26,800원(월소득 134,000원×세율+(20/100)고물상허가면허세로서 월 100원(매년 1,200원을 1회에 납부)고용한 점원의 급료20,000원에 대한 원천징수 갑종근로소득세 154원(면세점18,000원을 공제한 나머지 2,000원×세율+(7.7/100)등을 납부해야 할 것이므로 망인의 생활비 및 위제세금을 공제하면 동인의 한달 순수익은 94,842원{134,000원-(10,000+2,104+26,800+100+154)}인 사실, 원고들은 소외 망인의 장례를 치르기 위하여 관대금으로 27,000원, 수의 , 상복대, 죽장대, 위패, 명정, 빈소화환, 두건등을 비롯하여 영구차비등 장의사에 지급한 장의비로서 34,000원, 비석대금 10,000원, 묘소사용 및 관리비로서 31,700원 합계 102,700원을 장례비로 지출한 사실등을 각 인정할 수 있으므로 소외 망인은 이건 사고가 없었더라면 특별한 사정이 없는 이상 55세가 끝날때까지 앞으로 16년간에 걸쳐 총계 19,209,664원(94,842×12×16)의 순수입을 연차적으로 얻게될 것인바, 이건 사고로 말미암아 위 금액의 손해를 입게 되었다 할 것이고, 원고들은 이를 사고당시를 기준으로 일시에 청구하므로 위 금원의 총계에서 연 5푼의 중간이자를 공제하는 호프만식계산법에 의하여 그 현가를 산출하면13,129,611원{94,842×12×11.53639073(이율 5% 기수 16의 단리연금현가율), 원미만은 원고들의 주장에 따라 버림}이 됨이 계산상 명백하므로 이 돈에다 원고들이 지출한 장례비를 합친 13,232,311원이 원고들이 이건 사고로 인하여 입은 재산상 손해의 총액이라 할 것이나 한편 이건 사고발생에 있어서의 앞에서 본 소외 망인의 과실을 참작하면 피고는 원고들에게 재산상 손해의 총액이라 할 것이나 한편 이건 사고발생에 있어서의 앞에서 본 소외 망인의 과실을 참작하면 피고는 원고들에게 재산상 손해로서 7,150,000원을 입혔다고 보아야 하겠다.
Then, according to the records in Gap evidence No. 1 from the health stand ahead of the claim for consolation money, the plaintiff 1 is the deceased non-party 1's wife, and the remaining plaintiffs are the children of his husband and father due to the above accident. Thus, it is obvious in light of our rule and social reorganization that the mental suffering was great, and that the non-party 1 suffered a fatal injury until he died due to the accident. Thus, the defendant should pay 50,000 won to the above deceased and 10,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs, respectively, as consolation money, considering the plaintiffs' age, living level, circumstances of the accident in this case, degree of negligence of the above non-party 1, and other all other circumstances.
Therefore, the damage suffered by the deceased in this accident is 7,200,000 won (property damage 7,150,000 won + damages 50,000 won + damages 50,000 won). If it is calculated according to the plaintiffs' shares in inheritance, the plaintiff 1, 2, and the plaintiff 3, 2,400,000 won, and 1,600,000 won, respectively, were inherited respectively. Thus, the defendant received inheritance of 1,60,000 won, each of the above money, and the defendant received 1,60,000 won from the plaintiff 1 and 2,850,000 won (property damage 7,150,000 won + damages 50,000 won). Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and its claim is without merit by applying the judgment below to the plaintiff 3,50,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and there is no reason to accept the plaintiff's appeal as to the remainder of this case.
Judges Choi Jong-ro (Presiding Judge)