[손해배상][집16(3)민,318]
In calculating the income that can be obtained in the future of the family state which is the victim, it is illegal that the income was based on the income of the mother who is not the family state without any judgment on the location, etc. as the family head of the educational background and experience.
In calculating the income that can be obtained in the future from the family state as the victim, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of compensation for damages in the absence of any judgment on the location, etc. of the family state as a career, family principal, and in calculating the minimum amount of income on the premise of the income of the mother, not the family principal, but the family principal.
Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 393 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Republic of Korea (Attorney Lee Sung-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 67Na100 delivered on February 16, 1968
The part against Plaintiff 2 on the claim for damages against the property in the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The appeal against the part against plaintiff 2 in the original judgment against consolation money is dismissed.
All appeals by plaintiffs 1 and the defendant are dismissed.
The costs of each appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant are borne by each appellant.
As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiffs,
In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below determined that the monthly income of the mother is KRW 1,00 and KRW 500 per month when deducting the monthly income of the mother from the cost of living, such as clothes, under the premise that the deceased non-party 1 can obtain at least the amount of food death, from the description of the reason, the net income of KRW 500 per month can be recognized.
However, according to the facts established by the original judgment, the deceased non-party 1 is the wife of the plaintiff 2, the deceased non-party 2 and the father of the family, the plaintiff 1's own father, and according to the whole purport of the oral argument, although the deceased non-party 1 asserted that he graduated from a female high school, the original judgment did not make any judgment on the deceased non-party 1's academic background and career (the location as a family head office), but it calculated the minimum amount of income that he can obtain in calculating his future income under the premise that he will live with a baby, and barring any special circumstances, there was an error of law in the incomplete trial that did not make any judgment on his academic background, and it cannot be readily concluded that the deceased non-party 1 could obtain the future income from the deceased non-party 2 and 3, and the deceased non-party 1 could not obtain any other income from the mother's family head office, the part of the judgment can be reversed without any other legal reasoning as to the plaintiff 2's property income without any ground for appeal.
With respect to the part against Plaintiff 2 in relation to consolation money in the original judgment, there is no reason in the petition of appeal or the reason of appeal.
As to the ground of appeal No. 1 and Defendant’s attorney No. 3
The judgment of the court below that recognized the plaintiff 1's negligence based on evidence is not acceptable, and it cannot be determined that there was an error in the process of recognition, and it cannot be decided that there was an error in the process of recognition, and it cannot be adopted merely to criticize the whole matters of the court below regarding the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding
With respect to the offsetting of negligence in the claim for damages against the plaintiff 2's property, it shall not be determined since the part of the claim for property damage against the plaintiff 2 is reversed as described above.
As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant-appellant, according to the provisions of Articles 14 and 22 of the Road Act, since the management agency of the Special Metropolitan City roads is not the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor or the local government having jurisdiction over the Busan Special Metropolitan City roads, the management agency of the road in this case shall be the Busan Special Metropolitan City City Mayor, which is an administrative agency, and therefore, the management agency of the road in this case shall not
There is no reason to discuss this issue.
As to the second ground for appeal:
We cannot agree with the original judgment that there was a defect in the construction and preservation of the road in accordance with the evidence stated in the original judgment, and we cannot agree with the original judgment, and we cannot agree with the Defendant’s assertion that the accident was caused by the change of the groundwater course due to rain and the defect in the construction and preservation of the road, which was not attributable to the defect in the construction and preservation of the road, is merely a criticism on the matters of the original judgment regarding the determination of the evidence and the recognition of the fact
All arguments are groundless.
Therefore, in accordance with Articles 400, 406, 399, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judgment is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.
The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)