[손해배상청구사건][고집1971민,407]
A person who can claim consolation money due to life infringement.
The plaintiffs are not related to the deceased (the lineal ascendant, lineal descendant, and spouse) under Article 752 of the Civil Act, so it is possible to claim consolation money for this case. In order to claim consolation money, the plaintiffs must prove that they suffered mental pain due to the death of the above deceased. The plaintiff 1 is the death of the above deceased, and there is no other evidence to support this in addition to the facts that the plaintiff 3 and the plaintiff 2 were the women of birth. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money is groundless.
Article 752 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 67Da1307 delivered on September 5, 1967 (Kakadd 2049; Supreme Court Decision 15Third citizen35 delivered on the summary of the decision; Article 752 (11) 547 of the Civil Act)
Plaintiff 1 and two others
Korea
Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana15202) in the first instance trial
(1) Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 210,00 won in gold and 140,000 won in gold and the part against the defendant who ordered the plaintiff 2 and 3 to pay in excess of the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from July 18, 1968 to the day of full payment, shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim for revocation shall be dismissed.
(2) The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.
(3) All of the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts of the first and second instances, and one of the plaintiffs and two others shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 301,34 won, 210,889 won, and the interest rate of 5% per annum from July 18, 1968 to the day of full payment.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The plaintiffs' claims against the cancellation part of the original judgment against the defendant are dismissed.
(1) At around 14:30 on July 17, 1968, the non-party: (a) died before the reduction of the repair c.T.C. power line No. 49 of the telegraphic line No. 6,600 V between the Abs. 14:30, the non-party was responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs who are the bereaved family members of the non-party (the non-party's negligence) due to the death (the non-party's negligence) (the non-party's non-party 1) who is liable for compensating for the damages suffered by the non-party (the plaintiff 1) (the non-party 1 among the lost damages of the deceased non-party 1, the plaintiff 2,2, and 3 acquires the shares of inheritance of 140,000 won each, respectively, as it is identical with the original judgment, and thus, shall
The defendant litigation performer asserts that the non-party's bereaved family members should receive 328,320 won as a public service pension after the accident, and thus should be deducted from the amount of the above property damage. However, bereaved family's compensation, etc. paid under the Public Officials Pension Act shall have the character of social security as well as the nature of the above amount to be deducted from the amount of the damage. It is groundless
(2)Judgment on the part of the above request for materials
The plaintiffs are not related to the non-party under Article 752 of the Civil Act (the lineal ascendant, lineal descendant, and his spouse). Thus, in order to claim consolation money for this case, the non-party's death should prove that the non-party was suffering from mental suffering. Thus, the plaintiff 1 is the death of the non-party, and there is no other evidence to recognize this differently except the facts that the plaintiff 3 and the plaintiff 2 were the birth of the non-party. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money is groundless.
(3) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 210,00, KRW 140,000 and KRW 140,00, and KRW 140 per annum from July 18, 1968, the next day of the above accident related to the above accident to the full payment, so the plaintiffs' claim of this case shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed. Thus, the judgment which cited the above recognition limit in excess of the above recognition limit is reasonable within the above limit, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable within the extent of the above excessive limit. Thus, the defendant's appeal against the above excessive part of the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant shall be dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 93, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges Lee Jae-young (Presiding Judge)