The fault ability of the minor who is eight years of age;

In a case where the victim of eight years of age 8 did not avoid the crime of the victim due to the perpetrator's negligence when calculating the amount of damages caused by the perpetrator's negligence in calculating the amount of damages, if the perpetrator did not avoid the crime of breaking the air gun that was caused by the perpetrator's negligence, and then the perpetrator did not avoid the crime of breaking the compressed pumps of the said firearms.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act, Article 396 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1224 delivered on August 30, 1968, 68Da1224 delivered on August 30, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 181 delivered on August 181, 161, Supreme Court Decision 16BB citizen 369, Supreme Court Decision 763(113)585 delivered on

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court (79Gahap2358)

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

(2) The defendant 2 shall pay to the plaintiff 2 the amount of 4,293,00 won, the amount of 3,293,000 won, and the amount of 5% per annum from January 19, 1980 to the full payment date, jointly with the defendant 2.

(3) All remaining claims of Plaintiff 2 and the Defendants’ appeals against Plaintiff 1 are dismissed.

(4) The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff 2 and the defendants is divided into two minutes, and one is the same plaintiff and the remainder is the defendant's each, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1 are the defendant's burden.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 2,00,000, the amount of KRW 11,211,200, and the amount of KRW 11,200 to the plaintiff 2, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the date following the delivery of the copy to the date of full payment.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability;

A. Without dispute over the establishment of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (A's transcript of each family register), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (Medical Certificate and Disability Opinion) and defendant 2, who collected the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the examination of the criminal records of the court below, left 17 years of age and 8 months of age and 17 years of age and 8 months of age and 179, shall be liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the plaintiff's injury to the plaintiff's whole body due to the plaintiff's injury to the plaintiff's whole body due to the plaintiff's negligence during viewing 8 years of age and 7 years of age and 8 years of age and residing in the neighboring's house located in the near (detailed address omitted). Thus, the defendant shall be liable to compensate the plaintiff's injury to the plaintiff's whole body because the plaintiff's injury to the plaintiff's whole body caused by the plaintiff's injury to the plaintiff's 1's whole body.

On the other hand, if we gather the whole purport of the argument as a result of the examination of the above criminal record, this accident can be found to have caused the error that the above whole unit caused the negligence of the above plaintiff 2 to not avoid being exposed to the above whole unit, as in the nearest distance between the defendant 2 and the defendant 2. In this case, it should be considered in calculating the compensation amount.

B. If the witness evidence Nos. 5 (Dismissal of Evidence) to which the authenticity is recognized by non-party 1's testimony, and the witness's testimony is gathered with the whole purport of the pleading, the defendant 1, the father of the defendant 2, who is the father of the defendant 2, agreed on February 9, 1979 to take over the above plaintiff's medical expenses together and pay it to the plaintiff, and there is no counter evidence.

The plaintiffs asserted that they are obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs as well as consolation money for the above illegal acts because they have taken over all debts of defendant 1, including the above medical treatment expenses liability. However, it is not sufficient to recognize this as only the statement of No. 5 of the above evidence or the testimony of the above witness, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is groundless.

2. Scope of liability;

(a) Medical expenses;

According to Gap evidence Nos. 6 (Simplified Tax Invoice), non-party 2's testimony, which is acknowledged as the authenticity of Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 (Medical Expenses Claim) and Gap evidence Nos. 9 (Medical Expenses Accounting Statement) presumed as the authenticity of the document, and Gap evidence Nos. 10 (Medical Expenses Accounting Statement) presumed as the whole, and the whole purport of the pleading was collected, the plaintiff Nos. 10-10 of the above injury was 340,00 won for 00 won and 20-1000 won for 20-year medical treatment expenses, and the plaintiff Nos. 97 of the above injury was 90-year medical expenses for 20-year medical expenses and 30-year medical expenses for 20-year medical expenses, and the plaintiff Nos. 920-year medical expenses were 90-year medical expenses for 20-year medical expenses and 30-year medical expenses.

(b) consolation money;

Since it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 1, his father, suffered enormous mental pain due to the above injury of Plaintiff 2, as well as himself, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay consolation money accordingly. The consolation money is reasonable to determine Plaintiff 1 as KRW 500,000 and KRW 1,000,000 to Plaintiff 2, considering all the circumstances, such as the background and result of the accident of this case, the plaintiffs' age, family relationship, property status, etc. acknowledged by the evidence above.

3. Conclusion

Thus, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 the consolation money of KRW 500,00 and KRW 3,293,000 and the consolation money of KRW 1,00,000 and the consolation money of KRW 1,293,00,00 to Plaintiff 2. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly and severally with Defendant 2 on the record that it is the next day for delivery of a copy of the funeral so that the case is sought by the Plaintiffs after the date of the tort in this case, and after the date of the tort in this case, it is clear that it is the next day for delivery of a copy of the funeral to be sought by the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Defendant 2 is obligated to pay damages for delay in civil law in accordance with the rate of 5% per annum from January 19, 1980 to the date of full payment. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims for this case are justified within the above recognition scope, and the remainder of the claims are dismissed as without merit.

Therefore, since the part against Plaintiff 2 in the original judgment against the original judgment is deemed to be unfair by its partial conclusion, it is modified, and since the part against Plaintiff 1 is deemed to be justifiable by its conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal against this is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines