Whether the fault of a minor victim who has no responsibility can be offset by negligence

If the victim is a minor who is not equipped with intelligence sufficient to change his/her responsibility for act, the comparative negligence is not applied.

Articles 753, 763, and 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Korea

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 158,158 won, 10,00 won to the plaintiff 2, 89,079 won to the plaintiff 3, 167,16 won to the plaintiff 4, 93,558 won to the plaintiff 5, 10,000 won to the plaintiff 6, and 5 percent per annum from May 28, 1964 to the above full payment system.

The remaining claims of the plaintiff et al. are dismissed.

Two minutes of the litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 409,137 won, 300 won to the plaintiff 2, 234,568 won to the plaintiff 3, 422,496 won to the plaintiff 4, 241,248 won to the plaintiff 5, 300 won to the plaintiff 6, and 5 percent per annum from the following day of service to the full payment.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution. The defendant's litigation performer is dismissed.

The cost of lawsuit is assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

The defendant-appellant shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff, etc., and the attorney including the plaintiff, etc. is dismissed.

The cost of appeal is assessed against the defendant.

First, it is necessary to judge the claims of plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 without dispute, the non-party 1 is the person who is in the first-class driver's disease belonging to the Army (title 1 omitted), and the non-party 1 starts the unit to which he belongs after driving the above vehicle, which is the water supply transport vehicle at the time of September 26, 1963, and started the water supply system at the speed of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government at the speed of 20 m3 p.m., the same vehicle at the speed of 6 m. on the same 89 p.m., the non-party 1 was found to have been under the duty of care of the non-party 6 p.m. at the center of the 15 M. on the road at the 6th century, and it was found that the non-party 2 was under the duty of care of the non-party 3, who was under the duty of care of the non-party 1, who was under the duty of care to prevent the accident.

However, although the plaintiff et al. has a duty of care to protect the victim, the defendant's attorney defense that the accident occurred due to negligence that neglected such duty of care and should be taken into account in determining the liability and amount of damages. Thus, the defendant's defense is groundless since the defendant's defense is groundless, since there is no application of comparative negligence against the victim of a minor who did not possess intelligence sufficient to change the responsibility for the act, and even if the negligence was caused by the supervision to the person with parental authority, the negligence is not considered in determining the amount of damages to the victim.

In addition, even if the deceased non-party 3 did not die due to the accident in this case and it is recognized that he is alive until the age of 55 as alleged by the plaintiff, the expenses necessary for raising the deceased's child until the age of 55 should be deducted from the amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the deceased non-party 3 should be deducted from the amount of damages caused by the accident in this case due to the non-party 1's negligence in duty of care in the military hospital under the defendant's order of care, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the deceased for tangible and intangible damages caused by the accident in September 26, 1963, and the above deceased's claim for damages against the defendant is recognized as above. Thus, unless the deceased non-party 3 did not receive profits from the same cause at the same time as the victim's duty of support, the plaintiff's duty of support cannot be deducted from the profits of the plaintiff et al. due to the exemption of duty of support, and the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff et al.'s claim is without any mental suffering.

If the plaintiff's assertion is examined as to the amount of damages, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8-2, and 9 without dispute, the deceased non-party 3 was 3 years of age at the time of death as 1960. The average remaining life of the deceased was 52 years. The plaintiff 24 years of age can be at least 139 won per day from 10 years of age as of August 1963. The plaintiff's average remaining life expenses of 10 years of age were 1,60 won per day from 20 years of age, and the plaintiff 3 years of age can be recognized as 1,60 won per day from 10 years of age, and the plaintiff 4 years of age can be recognized as 1,60 won per day from 10 years of age as the witness 4 and 5's testimony, and the non-party 1's average remaining life expenses of 3 years of age after 10 years of age as of 30,000 won of daily living expenses of 10 years of age.

Therefore, in order to convert the amount into a lump sum, it can be recognized that the amount is KRW 414,473 (the amount calculated by multiplying the net earnings of 22,500 won per year by the 31-year coefficient of 18.42147049, which is the 31-year operating period). The above amount can be claimed at once after 20 years, which is 24 years old, when the deceased grow up and can be engaged in daily labor, or at once after 20 years, which is 20 years old, when the above amount can be claimed at the time of payment. In this case, at the time of payment, the above amount is calculated at 207,237 won (the net earnings of 1 year to 22,500 won, the 31-year operating period to 31 years to 20 years to 20 years to 31,5901077), and the defendant is obligated to compensate the above amount to the deceased non-party 3, the victim's 13.

Next, in light of the contents of the plaintiff's claim for consolation money, etc., the victim non-party 3 is the plaintiff 1's son, and the plaintiff 1 is the plaintiff 34 years old per 34 years old, and the plaintiff 2 is the victim's mother's 75 years old, and the property level of the plaintiff et al. is about 1.60,00 won per 160,000 won. Since the plaintiff et al. died due to the plaintiff's main traffic accident of the deceased non-party 3, it can be acknowledged in light of the general rule of experience that the plaintiff et al. suffered a lot of mental suffering. In light of the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff et al. suffered this mental suffering of the plaintiff et al., the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 3 are about 20,000 won for each case, and the plaintiff 2 is about 10,000 won for each case.

따라서 피고는 원고 1에 대하여는 재산적 손해로서는 금 138,158원과 위자료로 금 20,000원 합계 금 158,158원을, 원고 3에 대하여는 재산적 손해로서 금 69,079원과 위자료로 금 20,000원 합계 금 89,079원을, 원고 2에게는 위자료로서 금 10,000원 및 각 이에 대한 본건 솟장이 피고애ㅔ게 송달된 다음날임이 기록상 명백한 1964.5.28부터 위 완제에 이르기까지 연 5푼의 비율에의한 금원을 각 지급할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

Next, we will examine the claims of plaintiffs 4, 5, and 6.

In light of the purport of evidence No. 5 and No. 6, the non-party 6 was the person who was employed by the non-party 6 in the Army. The non-party 6 had a duty to transport sand on December 15, 1963, and the non-party 6 was the person who was employed by the non-party 6 in the Army (title 2 omitted) to the non-party 127 main office of the Army, and the non-party 6 was the person who was employed by the non-party 6 in the non-party 6 driver's office at the point of 10 o.e., Changwon-gun, Changwon-gun, the non-party 6 had the non-party 6 driver's duty of care to reduce speed on the whole side of the vehicle and to stop the vehicle on the right side of the vehicle on the ground of the non-party 6 driver's failure to take necessary measures to stop the vehicle on the left side of the vehicle on the ground of the non-party 6 driver's duty of care.

However, the defendant's legal representative has neglected his duty of care to protect the victims of the plaintiff et al., and therefore the accident occurred, and thus, the liability for damages and the amount of damages should be considered in determining the amount of damages. However, according to the above mentioned reasoning, the defendant's defense of offsetting negligence is groundless.

In addition, even if it is recognized that the deceased non-party 7 did not die due to the accident in this case and that he is alive until the age of 55 as alleged by the plaintiff, the expenses necessary for fostering the deceased's adult age will be enormous, and such non-voting child support should be deducted from the damages of the plaintiff's assertion, but the defendant's above assertion is without merit as stated above.

Then, according to the plaintiff 1's assertion that the plaintiff 4 had no dispute over the plaintiff 5's damages, the plaintiff 1 was the victim 5's 1, 2, and 9's father's 7 years old, and the victim 7 was the victim 5's 4 years old, and the average remaining life of the plaintiff 5 was 52 years old, and the plaintiff 2 was 139 won per day for 4 years old, the plaintiff 5's 7 years old, and the plaintiff 1 was the victim 4's 5 years old, and the plaintiff 1 was the victim 5's 5 years old, and the plaintiff 1 was the victim 5's 1,60 won old, and the plaintiff 2 was the victim 4's 5 years old, the defendant's 1,600 won old, based on the average remaining life expenses of the plaintiff 4 and 5's 5 years old, respectively, can be recognized as 10 days old, under the rule of experience.

Therefore, with respect to the plaintiff 4, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5 a sum of KRW 167,116 and KRW 20,000,000 as property damage, KRW 73,558 as property damage, KRW 93,558 as property damage, KRW 10,000 as solatium, and KRW 10,00 as solatium, and KRW 10,000 as solatium, and KRW 10,00 as solatium, and KRW 5% as property damage, from May 28, 1964 to the full payment of the above amount.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s claim for principal action is reasonable within the above limit, and the remainder is groundless and dismissed, and the original judgment which has different conclusions from this part of the original judgment shall not be exempted from its modification, and the defendant's appeal is partially reasonable, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 385, 96, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)