Setoff between civilian's taking advantage of military vehicles and negligence

If a civilian is unable to board a military vehicle but has a higher risk than that of a civilian vehicle for the performance of military duties, and the civilian was involved in an accident as a result of being on board a vehicle with a higher risk than that of a civilian vehicle for the performance of military duties, he/she shall set off his/her boarding on the military vehicle by negligence.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da19 delivered on March 7, 1967 (Daad 1177, Supreme Court Decision 15Da1214 delivered on July 15, 196, Supreme Court Decision 763(63)579 delivered on May 23, 1967 (Daad 8590 delivered on May 23, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 763(69)580 delivered on May 23, 1967

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Countries

Daejeon District Court (65Ga1079) of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 65Ga1079)

The part of the original judgment against Plaintiff 1 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 150,00 and an annual amount of KRW 5% from October 7, 1965 to the full payment.

Plaintiff 1’s remaining claims are dismissed.

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 is dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the defendant and the plaintiff 2 shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the above plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

The plaintiff's attorney sought a declaration of provisional execution that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 302,800, KRW 100,000, and KRW 100,000, and KRW 5% per annum from the day after the notice was served to the full payment. The defendant's litigation performer sought a judgment of dismissal of the plaintiffs.

The defendant (Appellant) litigation performer shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances, and the plaintiff (Appellant)'s attorney filed a judgment dismissing the appeal.

(1) As to the instant case, among the grounds for determining the party members, the charge of damages incurred by the Defendant due to Nonparty 1’s illegal act in the Army and the part on the personal relationship between Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2 are the same as the timely entry in the reasoning of the judgment in the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with

Furthermore, the reason for the occurrence of the instant accident is examined, and the fact that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence in the performance of duties by Nonparty 1 is the civilian as mentioned above. On the other hand, Plaintiff 1, the injured party, as a civilian, was on board a vehicle with a higher risk than a civilian vehicle in the performance of military duties, despite the fact that the civilian cannot board the military vehicle, and the injury suffered by the said Plaintiff cannot be said to have been negligent in calculating the amount of damages, and thus, it shall be considered to have been taken into account in calculating the amount of damages.

(2) The plaintiff 1 spent 47,800 won as medical expenses for the injury caused by this accident and claimed 73,00 won as the estimated medical expenses after January 5, 196. The plaintiff 1 claimed 120,800 won as the sum of the above estimated medical expenses for the defendant. The above plaintiff 1 operated 4,00 won per month prior to the accident and claimed 4,00 won as the net income of the above 4,00 won until January 5, 1966 because the plaintiff 1 sustained 60 won from the above estimated medical expenses for the above medical expenses for the defendant's remaining at least 1,2,00 won for the above estimated medical expenses for the defendant's remaining at the time of 60,000 won for the above medical expenses for the defendant's remaining at the time of 1,60,000 won for treatment after his testimony by the witness 2, and the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 3's testimony at the time of 60,000,00 won for new treatment.

(3) Following the plaintiff 1's claim for expected profit loss amount, and the witness non-party 2 and 3's testimony results of the appraiser non-party 4's appraisal and the whole purport of the pleading, the above plaintiff 4,00 won per month was salved before the accident of this case, but it can be acknowledged that the above plaintiff was unable to act as the above salved during seven months from May 30, 1965 to January 5, 1966 for the treatment of the injury caused by this accident, and therefore, the amount of losses of the above plaintiff's profits arising from the injury of this case was calculated 4,000 won x 76/30), 28,00 won x 120,80 won Do 149,600 won as well as 100 won for the above medical expenses, and if the defendant had already determined the degree of damages due to the above salved 1,000 won for the plaintiff 1.

(4) We look at the claim for consolation money, as seen above, it can be seen that the above plaintiff 1 or the plaintiff 2, who was the husband of the above plaintiff 1 or the plaintiff 2, who had been the plaintiff 1's husband, for a long time after treating the injury in this case. The defendant is obligated to pay such mental damage in money. In addition to considering the plaintiffs' status, family relations, academic background, degree of property and degree of negligence, and all other circumstances, it is recognized that 30,000 won for plaintiff 1 and 10,000 won for plaintiff 2 are reasonable, and therefore, the above damage of the plaintiffs is deemed to be a root.

(5) If so, as seen above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to 150,000 won, 10,000 won, and 10,000 won to the plaintiff 2, with an annual rate of 5% of the damages for delay in civil affairs from October 7, 1965 (e.g., the day following the short service) to the full payment, and thus, the plaintiff 1's claim of the principal lawsuit is reasonable within the above recognized scope and is dismissed and the remainder is dismissed. The part of the plaintiff 1's appeal that differs from the original judgment is unfair, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 is without merit. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and with respect to the bearing of litigation costs, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 95, and 89 of the same Act.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)