Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the court costs are assessed against the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

The defendant asserts that this lawsuit shall be dismissed because it was brought without going through a decision of compensation by the District Council under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, so the provision of the State Compensation Act applies to the case where public officials inflict liability on the State or local governments for damages when they caused damages to others in violation of the law by intention or negligence in the exercise of public authority, and the provision of the State Compensation Act cannot be applied to the case where the State or local governments act as the subject of private economy even though they are the State or local governments. Thus, this case is clearly recorded in the record that the defendant is claiming for damages pursuant to the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act since he operated the Si bus, which is owned by the defendant, died by Nonparty 1 while driving the Si bus, which is owned by the defendant, and thus, it is obvious in the record that the damage is claimed pursuant to

2. Liability for damages;

On November 16, 1972, at least 420, the fact that Nonparty 1 died on the shuttle bus (vehicle number omitted) driven by Nonparty 2, a driver belonging to the defendant around 16, 200, Seo-gu, Seoul, and around 420, the fact that Nonparty 2 died is no dispute between the parties. In full view of the result of the criminal record verification of the court below, Nonparty 2, who regularly operates the above shuttle bus on a regular basis between the south dong and the west dong, was on board the passengers at a speed of 25 km per hour at a speed of 15 km in Seoul, Seo-gu, Seoul, and reached the said accident point on the road at a speed of 10:0,000 square meters per hour, without a crosswalk and on both sides of the commercial building. In such case, Nonparty 2, who was engaged in driving service, did not appear on the left side of the road and did not appear on the left side of the road, and did not appear on the left side of the road.

In addition, according to the statement of No. 1 (No. 1) without dispute in the formation, the plaintiff can recognize the mother of the victim's deceased.

Therefore, this accident is obvious that the defendant's operation of the motor vehicle in his own behalf caused the death of the non-party 1. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage of the depth of the water that the plaintiff and the above deceased suffered due to the above accident in accordance with Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act unless there is any assertion that there is a ground for exclusion from the proviso of Article

Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that the accident occurred when Nonparty 1, the injured party, was able to take advantage of the above road where the traffic of the vehicle is frequent, and when crossing the road where the traffic of the vehicle is close, the accident occurred, considering the poor visibility, it can be said that the accident occurred as a part of the cause of the accident, whether the vehicle going through by taking into account the front side of the road is extremely old, or not, without fulfilling his duty of care. The testimony of Nonparty 3, the witness of the court below contrary to this, did not believe that the victim's negligence does not reach the extent of exempting the defendant from liability for damages, but the calculation of the amount of damages should be taken into consideration.

3. Calculation of damages;

A. Property damage of Nonparty 1

The evidence Nos. 1 (No. 3) and 4 (No. 4) and 6 (No. 5) of the same Act, the evidence No. 7 (No. 7), the evidence No. 9 (No. 9), and the evidence No. 10 (No. 10) of the court below’s witness, which are acknowledged to be established by the testimony of Non-Party 4, and the whole purport of the testimony and the whole purport of the oral argument of Non-Party 6, each of the above evidence No. 1 and Non-Party 6 of the court below’s witness, etc., which are considered to be established by Non-Party 5’s

(1) On January 6, 1964, Nonparty 1 was a user who obtained a license for use from the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 12, 1963 and was on duty as a continuous user on April 22, 1967, and leased a building with a business license of KRW 400,000,000 from the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-dong (detailed address omitted) on June 2, 1972, and used the building as a signboard with a sign of the use of the 5-round 1962.

(2) The above (name omitted) business establishments belonging to the Seodaemun-gu branch of the Korean Access Association, which are located in the (g) branch of the Seodaemun-gu branch of the said branch, suspend the business every week, and where a person holding a license for use in the said branch of the branch of the said branch of the Association operates a business for use, the said branch of the said branch of the Association will jointly distribute one-half of the operating owners and users, or have three-thirds of the operating owners, and then equally divide the remaining three-thirds of the operating owners into two-thirds of the operating owners. This is the fact that, while employing two users, they have three-minutes of the balance, after deducting the wages of expendable goods and other incidental expenses from the total operating income of one day and the wages of its operating assistants, those three-thirds of the remaining three-minutes of the operating owners have agreed to equally divide.

(3) The daily income of the above Lee Jong-chul for the three months prior to his death was KRW 638,610. The above amount was KRW 41,232. Thus, the deduction was 597,378. Thus, the average daily income during the above period was 6,492 Won (597,378±92). From the average daily income of the above 1st day, KRW 700 per 5,292 won per 5,292 won, and KRW 500 per 3th 5,292 won. Accordingly, according to the agreement, the above amount was 5,292 won and KRW 1,764 (529±3) per 3rd 5,528 won and the remainder was 3,528 won, and the victim, the non-party 1 and the non-party 32 had the same amount of the above 30th son's license after his death.

(4) However, the user company may work until the age of 25 days per month, and the victim non-party 1's monthly living cost is 15,000 won per month (if there is no dispute between the parties concerned about this point, the defendant dispute over the fact that the living cost in the pleading on October 10, 1973 at the trial is reasonable, it is deemed to be a cancellation of confession, but there is no evidence of assertion as to the fact that the confession is contrary to the truth and is caused by mistake, and therefore, as the user company of the Dong, the average monthly income is 28,50 won per month from Class A earned income (1,142 x 25) and 12,450 won after deducting the amount of 1,100 won and 15,000 won for living expenses, and the net monthly income is 14,450 won per month for 140 won and 400 won for each year.

(5) As of December 14, 1943, Nonparty 1 was a healthy male who was 28 years old and 11 months old at the time of the accident, and the average remaining life expectancy of 37 years old is a substantial fact on the party members, barring special group’s circumstances, it is presumed that he could survive until the age of 65, barring special group’s circumstances. It is presumed that he would be able to survive until the age of 65. If he did not die due to this accident, he would be able to engage in the same occupation for the same 31 years in the future, and make profits from the above recognition level. It would not be possible to obtain this, and it would be employed as a new manager in the management state, and thus, he would be able to recognize the fact that he was damaged by the party’s wage paid and there is no evidence contrary thereto.

Thus, the non-party 1 is unable to conduct the business of using the deceased as a result of the accident. Thus, it can be recognized that the non-party 1 suffered a loss equivalent to the annual management cost of KRW 360,00 per annum and KRW 149,400 per annum, and KRW 509,400 per annum. This is an annual accident for 31 years from the date of the accident. Since the plaintiff claims a lump sum on the date of the accident as of the date of the accident, it is reasonable that the calculation of the present value is KRW 9,383,861 (509,400 x 14,418.4214, and less than KRW 500) to deduct the interim interest at the rate of 5% per annum as of the date of the accident. If it is obvious that the above value is offset by the victim's negligence, the plaintiff is determined as the non-party 1's sole property damage claim as above.

B. The plaintiff's consolation money

The plaintiff's mother as the mother of the above deceased can be easily recognized in light of the empirical rule that he suffered a severe mental pain. The defendant is obligated to do so as money. With regard to the amount of money, considering the contents of the accident recognized as mentioned above, the status relationship with the deceased, and all other circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to pay 10 million won to the plaintiff as consolation money.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5,100,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from November 16, 1972 to the full payment day of this case, which is the date on which the damages occurred.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is just, and it is dismissed. The original judgment is just in its purport, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, so it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)