Whether wages at the time of the accident may be the basis for calculating the lost profit after the expiry of the term where the period of existence of the company has been stipulated in the articles of incorporation of the company where the victim of the accident worked at the time of the accident.

In calculating future gains, it is reasonable to presume that a person who has lost profits at the time of the accident would be able to obtain at least a certain amount of profit at the time of the accident in the future, not based on the premise that the person who has lost profits would be engaged in daily life at the workplace at the time of the accident, but on the premise that it is reasonable to presume that at least a certain amount of profit at the time of the accident would be able to obtain profit at the time of the accident.

Articles 763 and 393 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1349 delivered on July 27, 1971 (Law No. 9773 delivered on July 27, 197; Law No. 750(173)529 delivered on July 27, 197

Is-man et al.

Hail Transport Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (78Gahap5682) in the first instance trial

1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

3. The portion on which the original judgment in paragraph (1) of this Article was not attached with a declaration of provisional execution in the original judgment may be provisionally executed;

The plaintiffs are the main purport of the plaintiffs' claim, which is the amount of 13,827,98 won against the plaintiff Lee Han-seok, the amount of 7,263,99 won to the plaintiff Han-seok, and the amount of 5% per annum from November 19, 1978 to the date of full payment.

It is the preliminary claim that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant, and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Lee Han-seok an amount of 12,754,392 won, gold 6,57,196 won to the plaintiff Han-seok, and an amount of 5% per annum from November 19, 1978 to the date of full payment.

The defendant revoked the part against the defendant in the original judgment and dismissed each of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to this part.

It is called that the total cost of the lawsuit is borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

서울 1아1971호 영업용택시가 피고회사 소유인 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고 원심증인 박보일의 증언에 의하여 진정성립을 인정할 수 있는 갑 제2호증(사체검안서)의 기재내용과 같은 증인의 증언 및 원심의 형사기록 검증결과 종합해보면 피고회사의 운전사인 소외 망 손창세는 1978.11.19. 13:40경 경기도 파주군 문산읍 운천 3리 임진각 남쪽 약 2.5킬로미터지점 통일로상에서 소외 망 이경희와 소외 안광기를 승객으로 태우고 임진각을 향하여 과속으로 위 차를 운행중 임진각 남쪽 약 2킬로미터 지점에 설치되어 있는 탱크저지선 세멘콩크리트 구조물을 통과할 무렵 갑자기 중앙분리대쪽으로 접근하면서 위 택시차체로 동 분리대의 기둥을 들이받고 튕겨져 나와 다시 동 탱크저지선 우측 벽면에 충돌함으로써 왼쪽 뒷자석에 타고 있던 위 이경희로 하여금 두부 타박상으로 인한 뇌진탕 및 심장마비로 그 자리에서 사망케 한 사실을 인정할 수 있으며, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1 호증(호적등본)의 기재에 의하면 원고 이준석은 위 소외 망 이경희의 아버지, 원고 채옥란은 그 어머니인 사실이 인정되고, 달리 위 인정을 뒤집을 만한 증거가 없으므로 피고는 자동차손해배상법 3조 소정의 자기를 위하여 자동차를 운행하는 자로서 같은법 3조 단서 소정의 면책사유에 관한 주장과 입증이 없는 이 사건에서는 위 자동차의 운행으로 인하여 원고들이 입은 모든 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다 하겠다.

2. Property losses;

(A) Actual wages;

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (Simplified Life Table) without dispute over the above evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (Simplified Life Table) 4, this fact can be acknowledged that the average life expectancy of healthy women remaining 23 years of age and 5 months of age at the time of the accident as 1955.6.7, and such 43.51 years of age can be acknowledged. Considering the legal fiction of Gap evidence No. 4 (Certificate of Work) without dispute over the establishment, Eul evidence No. 5 (Certificate), the above fact that the above evidence No. 4 was 06 years of age and 104,410 won per month for 3 months before the accident, and the above fact that the above evidence No. 5 (No. 40,405, 407, 305, 407, 400 won per month for 4 months after the accident was calculated, the above fact that the above evidence No. 630,500 won per month for the above time of the accident was calculated.

The defendant asserts that the period of existence scheduled under the articles of incorporation of the above non-party film printing company is thirty years from March 1, 1971, which is the registration date of its establishment, and asserts that the claim for damages from the company's wage for the period after March 4, 2001, which is the expiration date of the above term, is unjustifiable, so it is not calculated on the premise that the profit-making party would work for the workplace at the time of the accident, but on the premise that in calculating the future profit-making profit, it is reasonable to presume that the profit-making party at the time of the accident would be able to obtain at least in the future, and on the premise that it is reasonable to presume that the profit-making party at the time of the accident would be able to obtain at least in the future, in the absence of special circumstances such as the above recognition even if the above net profit-making change in the future, it is reasonable to determine the amount calculated on the basis of the profit at the time of the accident.

(b) A daily retirement allowance;

According to the testimony of the court below and the court of first instance, the above non-party company can recognize the fact that it is subject to the Labor Standards Act which employs 30 or more workers on a regular basis and pays the aggregate of the average wages of 30 days for the number of years of continuous service as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act. The above net 200 on June 1, 1974 is the same as the above recognition. And according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant company's incorporation period is 30 years from March 4, 1971, since the above non-party 1 was 46 days from 36 days from 7.6 days from 196 days from 1974, 36 days from 36 days from 1974, 46 days from 26 days from 36 days from 1974, 36 days from 1974 to 36 days from 36 days from 196 days from 26 days from 1974.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for the loss of the amount of retirement allowances that could have been earned by the employees of the above company until they reach the age of 55, but the above company did not have to be deemed to continue to work after the expiration of the term of the company, the company shall not be deemed to be dissolved after the expiration of the term of the company. Therefore, the plaintiffs' subsequent claim for retirement allowances shall not be deemed to have been dismissed after the expiration of the term of the company (it shall be equal to the amount recognized by the court below, since the plaintiffs did not object to the damages due to the retirement allowances of the company, even if they agree otherwise on the term of the company of the defendant company).

(C) Funeral expenses

In full view of the testimony of the above witness in Gap evidence No. 6-1 to 19 (each statement and receipt) in which the authenticity is recognized by the testimony of the witness Park Jong-hee, the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee, the father of the above deceased Lee Jong-hee, can be recognized that the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee suffered damages which caused 448,020 won to be paid in combination with the above deceased's body autopsy expenses, permanent transportation expenses, and chemical equipment, etc. due to the accident at issue. Thus, the above defendant shall be liable to compensate the above plaintiff for KRW 300,000,000.

3. Consolation money.

In this case, it is sufficiently recognized in light of the empirical rule that the death of the above deceased and the mental suffering of the plaintiffs in the family relation of the above recognition will be serious, so the defendant has a duty to do so. If the above accident is combined with the details of the accident, the family relationship of the plaintiffs, the living level of the plaintiffs, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, it is reasonable to pay consolation money in equal amount to 70 million won to the plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 17,722,061 (16,868,620 won in daily actual payment + KRW 853,441 in daily retirement allowance) to the plaintiff Lee Jong-hee, and KRW 1,000,000 in daily retirement allowance ( funeral expenses + KRW 300,000 + KRW 70,000 in daily allowance + KRW 700,000), and the above deceased's damage claim is inherited at the rate of KRW 2:1 in accordance with the above evidence No. 1, to the co-inheritors, who can be recognized by the above evidence No. 1, and thus, the above deceased's damage claim was inherited at the rate of KRW 12,841,70 in daily inheritance and their damage claim, and the defendant is obligated to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages at the rate of KRW 12,607,353 in the Civil Procedure Act within the limit of 197 per annum, and the defendant's claim for damages from the above judgment No.15.

Judges Jeon Byung-hun (Presiding Judge)