Cases of not recognizing passive damages premised on promotion, future promotion

According to the personnel regulations, a raise in salary shall be excluded from the subject of a raise in salary, if there is any reason such as reprimand, salary reduction, suspension from office, poor performance, unauthorized absence from office, dismissal from office, early retirement, etc., and in the case of promotion, the performance evaluation, opinion of the head of the agency to which he belongs, and educational performance, etc. shall be determined. Therefore, the passive amount of damages shall be calculated according to the standards for the payment of wages and salary close to the argument of the deceased at

Articles 750 and 763 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da1888 delivered on February 28, 1966 (Kakad 1550; Supreme Court Decision 763Da576 delivered on March 26, 1974; Decision 73Da502 delivered on March 26, 1974 (Article 750(207)53 of the Civil Act; Decision 487Da7795 delivered on April 23, 1974; Decision 2206Da155 delivered on April 23, 196; Decision 763Da271 delivered on April 23, 1974 (No. 10692 delivered on April 15, 196; Decision 763(148)590 of the Civil Act; Court Gazette No. 48895 delivered on May 5, 195)

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea Highway Corporation

Daegu District Court of the first instance (70 Ghana1999)

All appeals by plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the defendant's appeal against the same plaintiffs are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal against this part shall be borne by each party.

Of the judgment below, the parts concerning plaintiffs 1 and 4 shall be modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 2,823,519 won, 1,411,759 won, and an amount of 5 percent per annum from June 28, 1970 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

The costs of the lawsuit in this part shall be divided into three parts through the first and second trials, and the remainder 1 of the same plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 4,269,90 won, gold 500,00 won to the plaintiff 4,269,900 won, gold 500,000 won each for the plaintiff 2 and 3, and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full payment.

The judgment and declaration of provisional execution that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant;

The defendant shall minimize the part of the judgment below against the defendant.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The plaintiffs are subject to revocation of the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiffs, and each judgment that the same purport and costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances.

Since the non-party 1, who is an employee of the defendant Daegu Maintenance Office, worked as an employee of the defendant Daegu Maintenance Office on January 24, 1970, took advantage of the 7-221 sloping line motor vehicle owned by the defendant by the non-party 2, who is the driver belonging to the defendant Corporation at around 1 p.m. on January 24, 1970, and was parked in the sloping line from Daegu to its racing, and died on the Busan 7-3298 Highway, which was parked in front of 2 p.m. from the sloping-gun, the sloping-gun in Busan, is not a dispute between the parties, and the defendant Corporation is liable for damages caused by the above accident under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act as a person operating the motor vehicle for his own interest, and there is no negligence on the part of the defendant 1 Corporation, but there is no reason to believe that there is no negligence on the part of the non-party 3 as an employee in charge of the above technical affairs.

Next, according to the records of No. 1, without dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff 1, the father of the deceased and the plaintiff 4 are the mother of the deceased, and the deceased non-party 1 can recognize the fact that he is the unmarried male-child of August 16, 1943. Thus, the income that the above deceased could have obtained if he had not been involved in the accident shall be lost due to the death of the Dong, and the above plaintiffs, his parent, jointly inherit it, and the amount of damages for the lost profit of the deceased shall be considered as the amount of damages for the lost profit of the deceased.

The plaintiff's attorney's regular promotion of the defendant Corporation is 4.1.1 and 10.1. However, the plaintiff's attorney's regular promotion of the second grade is 1.1, 4.1, 7.1. and 10.1, and the period required for promotion is 1.1, 1 year for the first grade, 2.9 months for other six months, and 5 through 12 years for the supply of water. Thus, the plaintiff's attorney was appointed as 12 salary grade for the above 10th grade since he was promoted to 103.7.7.7, the plaintiff's attorney's allegation that the above 1nd grade of the defendant Corporation's regular promotion of the deceased's service was based on his opinion that the amount of remuneration to be paid by promotion is 60 years of age, i.e., losses caused by the plaintiff's continuous promotion of the plaintiff's 1's salary before his retirement due to the above 10th grade of the defendant's salary.

The deceased Non-Party 1 shall give testimony to the witnesses as stated in the evidence No. 2 and Non-Party 2’s testimony of the original instance court - 1 to 3. The deceased Non-Party 2 shall be presumed to have been paid monthly salary of 21,059 won, including the basic salary, position allowances, overtime work allowances, and heavy food support expenses, and 20,185 won per month until 5. The deceased Non-Party 2 shall be deemed to have been paid monthly salary of 20,570 won, and the deceased shall be deemed to have been paid monthly salary of 20,185 won from 47. The deceased shall be deemed to have been paid monthly salary of 30,950 won until 5. The deceased's monthly salary of 47,571 to 47,57, and the deceased's monthly salary of 47,500 won shall be deemed to have been paid at least 34,950,000 won per month until 5,000 won.

In addition, according to the evidence evidence No. 8, the Seoul Industrial Accident Insurance Office paid 701,960 won to the deceased's bereaved family's bereaved family members as a result of the accident on July 3, 1970. Thus, the deduction from the above recognition amount is 3,935,279 won, and the amount of inheritance of the same amount by Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 4 according to the share of inheritance is 2,623,519 won, and Plaintiff 4 is 1,31,759 won.

Next, as acknowledged in the former part, the plaintiffs 1 and 4 are the parents of the deceased as to the claim for consolation money, and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are obvious by the evidence No. 1. Since the deceased non-party 1 suffered mental distress due to the death of fire caused by the accident in this case, the plaintiffs are acknowledged to be easy on the part of experience, so the defendant corporation is obligated to pay consolation money corresponding to this point to the plaintiffs. If the testimony of non-party 5 is combined to the statement No. 2 of the court below without dispute about the establishment, the above deceased is a superior youth who received university education, and the plaintiffs were expected to have a big expectation in the future of the deceased, and the plaintiff 2 and 3 are obvious by the evidence No. 1 of this case No. 6, and the plaintiff 1 and 3 are recognized to have suffered mental distress. According to the evidence No. 7 of this case, the defendant corporation bears the duty to pay consolation money equivalent to 100 won to the plaintiff's employees, and it can be recognized to have paid consolation money to the plaintiff 2000 won.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 2,823,519 won and 1,411,759 won for the plaintiff 2 and 3, 50,000 won each for the plaintiff 2 and 3, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from June 28, 1970 to the full payment date for the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is dismissed. Since the part concerning the plaintiff 1 and 4 is not consistent with the above part and is unfair, the part concerning the plaintiff 2 and 3 is dismissed without any reason, and the defendant and the plaintiff 2 and 3's appeal against this part are dismissed without any reason and with respect to the payment of litigation costs, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jung-gu (Presiding Judge)