Normal damage in the event that an article is damaged due to a tort;

In case where goods are damaged due to a tort, in principle, the cost of repair at the time of damage falls under ordinary damages and if it is impossible to repair them, it is reasonable to reduce the exchange value as ordinary damages.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da544 delivered on May 24, 1971

Gyeongbuk Traffic Corporation

Defendant 1 School Foundation and two others

Daegu District Court (78 Gohap1228) in the first instance

(1) The part against Defendant 2 and 3 in the original judgment is modified as follows.

(2) Defendant 2 and 3 shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff money at the rate of KRW 1,447,196 and the rate of 5% per annum from July 1, 1979 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiff's remaining claims against the above defendants are dismissed.

(4) The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 1 school foundation is dismissed.

(5) The litigation cost incurred between the Plaintiff, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 shall be four minutes through the first and second trials, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the aforementioned Defendants, respectively. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant 1 educational foundation shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(6) The above (2) can be provisionally executed.

The original judgment (the part against Defendant 2 and 3) shall be revoked. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,702,614 and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from July 1, 1979 to the full payment (the part of the claim shall be reduced in the first instance).

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. First, we judge the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 school foundation (hereinafter in this paragraph, referred to as the defendant only).

As seen later, in the instant accident caused a collision with the bus (vehicle number 1 omitted) owned by Defendant 2 (vehicle number 1 omitted, Defendant 3) and the Plaintiff’s (vehicle number 2 omitted), the Plaintiff caused an accident during operation by Defendant 2 entering the bus owned by him to the Defendant and registering his name. The Defendant asserted that, as the user of Defendant 3 or jointly with Defendant 2 and 3, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, the registered name of the said bus at the time of the instant accident, but the Defendant was also the owner of the said bus at the time of the instant accident, on the other hand, the Plaintiff was the owner of the said bus at the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff was the owner of the said bus at the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff was the owner of the said bus at the time of the instant accident and the owner of the said bus at the time of Nonparty 1’s testimony and the purport of the testimony of the said witness at the time of the above accident, and on the other hand, the Defendant 2 was responsible for the above construction of the bus at 10th.

Therefore, at the time of the accident, the defendant is merely a registered titleholder, but cannot be said to have control over the operation of the bus or to have a position to enjoy any benefit from the operation of the bus. In an objective and external perspective, the defendant cannot be said to be a person who operates an automobile for himself as provided in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act or a user of the defendant 3 (Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is a special law for the protection of the victim whose life and body are infringed due to a car accident, and there is no room to apply the above provision to the claim for damages due to the damage of the bus).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act or under the premise that the defendant is the employer of the defendant 3 is groundless without examining further.

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2 and 3 (hereinafter in this paragraph, the Defendants)

(A) Grounds for liability

The facts of collision between the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 on August 14, 1978 by the non-party 2's (vehicle number 1 omitted) bus crossing around 09:00 on the non-party 2's own (vehicle number 2 omitted) which the non-party 3 driven by the non-party 2 and the non-party 2's (road number 1 omitted) are non-party 7,8,9,10,12,13,16, 20,20, 21, 23, 23, and 33 of the non-party 2's bus crossing at the same time as that of the non-party 2's bus stop at the non-party 3's intersection, the non-party 2's movement at the same time as the non-party 3's bus stop at the non-party 4-party 14-party 14-party 14-party 14-party 4,68,9-party 3-party 2's of the appeal

However, the defendant 3 and the non-party 2, who are engaged in the driving of motor vehicles, have a duty of care to ensure safety by checking whether there is a vehicle coming from the crossing crossing, once they stop and check whether there is a vehicle, and then proceed slowly, to prevent the collision. According to the evidence above, the defendant 3 and the non-party 2, who neglected to do so and failed to work due to the malfunction of the traffic signal, etc., are at least 15 meters prior to stopping and stop at the above 20 meters prior to stopping (the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who is already at the speed of 60 to 70 meters prior to stopping, and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2, who continued.

Thus, the accident of this case is obvious that the negligence of Defendant 3, who is the driver of Defendant 2, and the negligence of Nonparty 2, who is the driver of the Plaintiff company, were caused by the competition between each other. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the accident. The share of the Plaintiff and the Defendants in internal relations with respect to the liability of the joint tort should be determined according to the proportion

(B) Scope of damages

(1) Damage caused by damage to buses.

In full view of the following facts: Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 3 (detailed statement, statement of transaction, claim form), Gap evidence No. 2 (C. 2) which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of the witness non-party 3, the plaintiff accepted the plaintiff's bus damaged by the accident in this case for six days from August 14, 1978 to 19 of the same month; the plaintiff paid 960,000 won at the repair cost; the average net income of the bus in this case is 63,619 won (total income amount, 90,000, oil amount, 26,381 won), and there is no counter-proof evidence; and it is clear that the owner of the automobile can operate the automobile in accordance with the empirical rule for the average of twenty-five days of the month.

In addition, the plaintiff sought compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of KRW 500,000, which was due to a defect in the plaintiff's bus due to the accident, but in case where the goods were damaged due to a tort, the repair cost at the time of the damage constitutes ordinary damages in principle. If the repair is impossible, it is reasonable to reduce the exchange value (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da544 delivered on May 24, 1971). Accordingly, the plaintiff's bus was accepted as repair cost of KRW 960,000,000, as seen above, the above assertion by the plaintiff is groundless.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's bus was damaged due to the accident of this case, the losses suffered by the plaintiff are 1,278,095 won (63,619x6x (25/30) plus 318,095 won (63,619x6x (25/30). The amount to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff shall be 1,278,095 won, taking into account the negligence of the non-party 2, who is the plaintiff's employee, as seen above, is 4/5 of the above amount, which is 1,02,476 won.

② The Plaintiff’s indemnity amount

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 (amount of compensation for losses) and Gap evidence Nos. 35-1 through 8 (Agreement) which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of non-party 4 by the witness of the court below, and the whole purport of the pleading in each part of the above witnesses' testimony, the plaintiff, from among the victims of the attached list in this accident, shall pay the amount recorded in the attached list No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the victims of the accident in this case, as stated in the attached list No. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 10, 11, and 12 of the victims of the accident in this case, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff spent the total amount of 20,900 won according to the hospital transportation expenses of the victims in this case and their care' testimony, and the causal relation between the accident and the injury and the injury's age, and expenses.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s total sum of the money paid or disbursed by the Plaintiff (510,000 + 20,900 won) was jointly paid or disbursed by the Plaintiff, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, and became joint immunity. As such, the Plaintiff can seek reimbursement against the said Defendants according to the ratio of fault between the Plaintiff and the Defendants in the instant accident. Thus, the Defendants are jointly obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 424,720,50,50,500, which is 424,720,500.

In addition, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount of 300 million won for the compensation of damages from the remaining victims. The defendants asserted that they are obligated to compensate the above amount to the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff is simply obligated to compensate for damages, and it is not reasonable because it is not possible to claim in advance against the defendants, who are joint tortfeasor.

(C) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 1,447,196 won (1,02,476 won +424,720 won) and damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum under the Civil Act from July 1, 1979 to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 and 3 shall be accepted within the extent recognized above, and all of the plaintiff's remaining claims against the above defendants and the claims against the defendant 1 school foundation shall be dismissed without merit.

Therefore, the original judgment is unfair in its conclusion with regard to Defendant 2 and 3, and it is reasonable for Defendant 1 school foundation to make the same conclusion. As such, the Plaintiff’s appeal against the above Defendant is dismissed. As to the bearing of litigation costs, Articles 89, 92, 93, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the Provisional Execution Act are applied to the declaration of provisional execution.

[Attachment]

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines