Whether there exists a causal relationship between the loss of profit after death and the mining accident in the case of death of the injured person caused by a mining accident regardless of the injury.

If a mining accident has died of the crypam caused by a mining accident regardless of the injury, the damage caused by the mining accident shall be interrupted by the death of the crypator, and there is no proximate causal relation between the loss of profit and the loss of profit that cannot be incurred after the death and the above mining accident.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Korea Coal Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (69Da9879) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da9879)

(1) The original judgment is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 89,00 won, 69,000 won, 107,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 88,000 won to the plaintiff 5, and an amount of 5 percent per annum from July 25, 1968 to the full payment system.

(2) All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

(3) The 1.2 costs of lawsuit, including the extension of claims by the plaintiffs and incidental appeal costs, shall be divided into five parts, one of which is the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiffs respectively.

(4) Of each of the money received by the Defendant due to the sentence of provisional execution in the lower judgment, Plaintiff 1 shall be paid an amount of 8,663 won, Plaintiff 2 shall be 18,949 won, Plaintiff 4 shall be 149,356 won, Plaintiff 5 shall be 84,152 won, Plaintiff 3 shall be 13,814 won, and the annual amount of 5% from February 12, 1969 to the full payment.

(5) The defendant's request for return of the remaining payment against the plaintiffs is dismissed.

The defendant's attorney shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 293,528 won, 293,528 won, 780,584 won to the plaintiff 4, 537,056 won, and 55 percent per annum from July 25, 1968 to the full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution declaration are declared.

(1) The Plaintiff’s death at the trial of the court below, resulting in the death of the deceased Nonparty 1, who was the Plaintiff at the trial of the court below, extended the claim for damages from the deceased’s loss of profit (the expansion amount to KRW 13,918), and Plaintiff 3 additionally claimed consolation money (the claimed amount to KRW 50,000).

Of the part against the plaintiffs as to the claim for damages from loss of profits by the deceased non-party 1 in the original judgment, the defendant revoked the part against the plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 as to dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim against the plaintiff 1, 3 of 45,006 won, 135,019 won, 50 won to the plaintiff 4 of 135,019 won, and 90,013 won to the plaintiff 5 of 90,013 and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from July 25, 1968 to the full payment. The defendant shall pay each of the above amounts to the plaintiffs.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a provisional execution sentence. The defendant's attorney has revoked the part against the defendant against the plaintiffs in the original judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on that part.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

Of the part against the plaintiffs as to the claim for damages from loss of profits by the deceased non-party 1 in the original judgment, the part against the plaintiffs as to the deceased's claim for consolation money and the part against the plaintiffs as to the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money (excluding plaintiff 3) shall be revoked, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 2 with the amount of 71,081 won, 135,343 won, 103, 562 won, 103, 562 won, 31, 381 won, and 5 percent per annum from July 25, 1968 to the full payment system.

The judgment of the first and second courts, including incidental appeal costs, is that all the costs of the lawsuit should be borne by the defendant and provisional execution is declared.

The defendant-appellant filed an application with the defendant to pay to the defendant 1 an amount equivalent to 100,137 won, 89,867 won for the plaintiff 2, 259, 331 won for the plaintiff 4, 259, 50 won for the plaintiff 5, 84,599 won for the plaintiff 3, 84,732 won for each of them, and 84,732 won for the plaintiff 3 and the amount equivalent to 5 percent per annum for the full payment from February 12, 1969 to the full payment.

Since there is no dispute over the establishment of the above-mentioned part, Gap 2,3 each item of evidence (application for medical care and opinion of early medical examination) presumed to be genuine, considering the whole purport of the oral argument by non-party 2 and 3 of the court below, the deceased non-party 1, who is the front part of the defendant's mining center, without the defendant's work order on July 24, 1968, 03:00, the non-party 3, who is the head of the on-site working group, shall not be obliged to establish the above mining center 375 M, L.L (M.) and the non-party 3's order to maintain and repair the above facilities to the extent that there is no concern that the defendant's above-mentioned repair and maintenance work would be against the above-mentioned order of the non-party 3,000 tons of the above-mentioned mining foundation, and the defendant shall prepare an order to maintain and repair the facilities to the extent that there is no danger of an accident caused by the non-party 3'spar.

Meanwhile, according to the facts acknowledged above, the above victim, who is a coal fighting unit, was in a state of need of remuneration in the event of a ceiling repair work within a port, and there is a danger of the base, so even without the direction of the chief of the working group, he should have sufficiently examined the overall conditions inside the port for his safety, and should have discovered and evacuated in advance whether or not there exists a risk of the abortion during his work, and even if there is no such order, the above victim could have known the fact that he was faced with this accident while performing the work in a manner consistent with the working order of the chief of the working group. Thus, the above victim's negligence in the accident of this case is concurrent, and thus, it should be offset against the defendant in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated for by him.

Furthermore, considering the above victim's loss of profits, Gap's 1 and 5 (No dispute over the above victim's losses) were 0, 100, 200 won per annum 1 and 4, the above victim's average remaining life of 41,000 won per annum 24.19, 70 won per annum 8,00 won per annum 1 and 40,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 50,000 won per annum 70,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 7,000 won per annum 40,000 won per annum 7,000 won per annum 6,00 won per annum 7,000 won per annum 8,00 won per annum 6,00 won per annum 1 and 7,000 won per annum 8,000 won per annum 6,000 won per annum 1 and 7,000 won per annum 16.

Since the deceased non-party 1 was the cause of the above accident to treat the deceased non-party 1's injury during the period of 6 months after the death of the deceased and the injury occurred to the non-party 2, the plaintiff was deceased on February 20, 1969 and the injury was caused by the accident. Thus, the deceased's death was caused by the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's.

Then, we examine the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money against the above victim 1 himself/herself and the above victim 1 and she suffered from mental distress due to the above victim's accident. Thus, the defendant is obligated to do so in light of the empirical rule that the defendant suffered from mental distress due to the above victim's accident. Thus, the defendant is obligated to do so. Considering the facts acknowledged in health and leaf, the victim's negligence point of the above victim's own negligence, and all circumstances revealed in this argument, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant is 100,00 won to the above victim 1, and 70,000 won to the plaintiff 2,3,4,50 won to the above victim 1, 50,000 won, respectively. Since the consolation money to the deceased non-party 1 was jointly inherited by the plaintiffs, the amount of consolation money to the plaintiffs 1, 2, 300,500 won, 30,500 won, 50,500 won, 205 won, 2005 won.

따라서 피고는 원고 1에게 수익상실손해금 6,500원, 망 소외 1의 위자료상속분 금 12,500원, 동 원고 자신의 위자료 금 70,000원을 합한 금 89,000원, 원고 2, 3에게 수익상실손해금으로 각 금 6,500원, 망 소외 1의 위자료상속분 각 금 12,500원, 동 원고들의 각 위자료로 각 금 50,000원을 합한 각 금 69,000원, 원고 4에게 수익상실손해 금 19,500원, 망 소외 1의 위자료 상속분 금 37,500원, 동 원고자신의 위자료로서 금 50,000원을 합한 금 107,000원, 원고 5에게 수익상실손해 금 13,000원, 망 소외 1의 위자료상속분 금 25,000원, 동 원고 자신의 위자료 금 50,000원을 합한 금 88,000원 및 각 이에 대한 이건 불법행위 이후로서 원고들이 구하는 1968.7.25.부터 완제에 이르기까지 민법 소정의 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급할 의무있다 할 것이므로 원고들의 이건 각 청구는 위 인정의 범위내에서 정당하여 인용하고 나머지는 기각할 것인 바, 이와 결론을 달리하는 원판결을 주문 (1)과 같이 변경하고 원고들의 확장청구(원고들의 확장청구금액 합계액은 금 13,918원임)를 포함하는 나머지 청구는 실당하므로 이를 기각하기로 하고, 따라서 원판결 주문 제 1항에 대한 가집행선고는 위와 같이 변경되는 한도에서 실효되는 것인 바, 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 1호증(영수증)의 기재내용에 의하면 1969.2.12.에 원판결에 부친 가집행선고에 기하여 피고로부터 망 소외 1은 금 660,000원 및 이에 대한 1968.7.25.부터 위 가집행 날자까지의 연 5푼의 지연이자를 합하여 도합 금 677,857원, 원고 1은 금 15,000원 및 이에 대한 위 기간동안의 지연이자를 합한 도합 금 15,405원, 원고 2, 4, 5는 각 금 5,000원 및 이에 대한 위 기간동안의 지연이자를 합한 각 금 5,135원씩을 수령한 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로 망 소외 1이 수령한 금 677,857원은 동인이 사망하고 원고들이 그의 상속인들로서 이건 소송을 수계하므로서 원고들이 그들의 상속비율에 따라 각 지급받은 것으로 보아야 할 것이므로 원고들의 상속분에 따라 이를 나누면 원고 1, 2, 3은 각 금 84,732원, 원고 4는 금 254,196원, 원고 5는 금 169,464원이 되므로 결국 원고 1은 도합 금 100,137원, 원고 2는 금 89,867원, 원고 4는 금 259,331원, 원고 5는 금 174,599원, 원고 3은 금 84,732원을 위 가집행선고에 의하여 지급받은 것이 되는 바, 한편 원고들이 위 가집행선고에 의하여 피고로부터 위 각 금원을 지급받은 1969.2.12. 당시로 원고들이 지급받을 수 있는 금원은 원고들에 대한 위 인정의 각 금원 및 각 이에 대한 1968.7.25.부터 1969.2.12.까지의 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 금원이므로 이를 산정하면 원고 1은 금 91,474원{원미만 포기, 이하 모두 같다. 89,000원+(89,000원×0.05×(203/365)} 원고 2, 3은 각 금 70,918원{69,000원+(69,000원×0.05×(203/365)} 원고 4는 금 109,975원{107,000원+(107,000원×0.05×(203/365)} 원고 5는 금 90,447원(88,000원+(88,000원×0.05×(203/365)}이 되므로 원판결의 가집행선고로 인하여 원고 1은 금 8,663원(100,137원-91,474원), 원고 2는 금 18,949원(89,867원-70,918원), 원고 4는 금 149,356원(259,331원-109,975원), 원고 5는 금 84,152원(174,599원-90,447원), 원고 3은 금 13,814원(84,732원-70,918원)을 각기 초과 지급받은 것이 되므로 원고들은 동 초과부분 각 금원 및 이에 대한 1969.2.12.부터 완제에 이르기까지 민법 소정의 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 돈을 반환할 의무있다 할 것이므로 피고의 이건 가집행선고로 인한 지급물 반환신청은 위 인정범위내에서 정당하여 주문 (4)와 같이 인용하고 나머지는 이유없으므로 이를 기각하고 소송비용의 부담에 관하여서는 민사소송법 제95조 , 제96조 , 제89조 , 제92조 , 제93조 를 각 적용하고 가집행선고는 이를 붙이지 않기로 하여 주문과 같이 판결한다.

Judges Kim Jong-nam (Presiding Judge)