206 Gaz.332 damages

1.1.1.Mo* (****************))

2.** (********************)*)

3.01** (******************))

4.O* (********************))

Plaintiffs’ Address*** also******************************

Plaintiff 4. Legal Representative of Person with Parental Authority*, Mabam*

Plaintiffs, Attorneys Park Jong-ok*

Gangwon-do

Representative, Superintendent of Education*

Attorney Hong-soo*

November 2, 2007

December 7, 2007

1. The defendant pays to the plaintiff*** 59,934,750 won, plaintiff*, gambling* 3,00,000 won, plaintiff** 1,00,000 won, and 5% per annum from April 22, 2004 to December 7, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. 2. The remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. 5 minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff * 98,624,133 won, plaintiff **, Park*, Lee*, this** 5,00,00 won each of the above amounts and 5% per annum from April 22, 2004 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, or between Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4-1, 3-1, 9-1, 2-1, 10-2, 10-1, 10-2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 3 of this Court, and the field inspection result of this Court, the plaintiff *** there is no counter-proof. (1) this * The plaintiff * * military ** * * * * * * * * * this * * * the above * the above * the above 3th class session of the high school and the above 3th class session of the above 3th class session of the school building * the above 3th class session of the school building * the replacement of the aftermath of the aftermath of the aftermath of the aftermath of the aftermath of the vehicle.

(2) Prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff** while playing a role as a practical assistant on the part of the function of the said vehicle at the above school, there was no actual decomposition or assembly of the tea system. On the date of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs ordered the Plaintiff ** to dismantle or assemble the tea system to the practical assistant at the training room without any explanation as to the method of disassembly, assembly or cautions of the tea system from among the Dos operating the tea system at the time of the occurrence of the accident. The Plaintiff ** laid down the brake system on the practical floor without the protective gear such as the protective design.* The Plaintiff * laid down the brake system on the front part of the said school, and deducted the parts of the tea system from the end of this case, but it was not easy for the head of the said Dong at the time of the dissolution of the vehicle at the end of this case.

(3) Plaintiffs**, gambling* is the parents of Plaintiffs **, Plaintiff **, this* is the co-born of Plaintiffs ***, the Defendant is the local government that establishes and operates the above******.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff** is negligent in causing the accident of this case in the course of de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-con- re- re-de-de- re-de- re-con- re- re- re-con- re-con- re- re-con-

However, at the time of the accident, the plaintiff** was born in the third-year high school with the ability to separate grasium, and thus, in conducting the dismantling of the tea equipment without prior experience, the plaintiff* was negligent in failing to take care of the risk of the accident by asking about the method or requesting the payment of protective equipment such as the protective design, and neglecting the duty of care to reduce the decomposition at the time of the decomposition of the machinery, even if the decomposition is not well achieved, and even if the decomposition is not done at the time of the decomposition of the machinery, the plaintiff**'s negligence is considered to have caused the accident and the expansion of damage of the accident in this case. Therefore, the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of this, but the defendant's fault ratio shall be 70% in consideration of the overall circumstances shown in the argument in this case.2.

(a) Actual income:

Plaintiff*** The lost import loss suffered from the instant accident is KRW 73,826,435, calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident by deducting the intermediate interest rate of KRW 5/12 per month as follows, based on subparagraph (1) below (2) (the period less than a month and the amount less than a won; hereinafter the same shall apply). (1) Facts of recognition and details of evaluation

(1) Gender: Male

(2) Date and time of an accident: The date and time of the accident: April 22, 2004.

(5) Income: 1,440,494 won per month (=65,477 won per day on May 2005 in an investigation report on the actual condition of wages for construction business x 22 days)

(6) Spare disability and labor ability loss rate: Permanent disability of 24% due to the loss of eyesight by fluor.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 6, physical appraisal of the principal of the original cycle hospital, and fact inquiry result]

(2) Calculation

73,826,435 won = 1,440,494 won (274.0819 - 60.5370) x 24%

(b) Positive damage (expenses, etc.);

Plaintiffs * 3,223,208 won in total of the expenses paid by Plaintiffs * medical expenses and general travel expenses, etc.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence A 7-1 to 47, Evidence A 8-1 to 27, the purport of the whole pleadings]

The plaintiffs sought payment of KRW 1,571,220 to the plaintiffs this** under the premise that they had been provided with the nursing for the nursing during the period of their hospitalization, but there is no evidence to prove that there was a situation requiring a separate nursing beyond the nursing provided by the hospital during the period of their hospitalization. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

(e) consolation money;

Considering all the circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case, such as the age and academic background of the Plaintiff**, degree of injury suffered, the Plaintiffs’ family relationship, and the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, the amount of consolation money is reasonable to determine the amount of consolation money as KRW 6,000 for the Plaintiff***, the Plaintiff’s 6,000,000 for the Plaintiff**, 3,000,000 for each of 3,00,000 for the Plaintiff**.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff ** 59,934,750 won (per day imported 73,826,435 won + positive damages 3,223,208 won) x 70% + 6,000 won + plaintiff **, Park*, 100,000 won, and delay damages for each of the above money to the plaintiff ** 1,000,000 won and delay damages for the plaintiff *.

Therefore, the defendant has no intention to pay to the plaintiff ** 59,934,750 won, plaintiff **, gambling* each of 3,00,000 won, plaintiff *** 1,00,000 won, and each of the above money from April 22, 2004, which is the date of the accident of this case until December 7, 2007, the date of the judgment of this case (which is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation) under the Civil Act, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is dismissed as the remainder is without merit.

Exemplary (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard of gambling

Hephoho Lake