In case where a driver has paid an automobile accident while he has completed his training for the reserve forces with the consent of the owner of the land, he shall be liable to compensate for the damage of the owner company.

In the event that an accident occurs while driving a vehicle is in a relationship under which the vehicle is under the command and supervision of an employee of the company participating in the branch as an employee, and when the owner of the land obtains the consent of the owner of the land, he/she can drive the vehicle with the consent of the owner of the land, and he/she has completed the education of his/her reserve forces, the vehicle operation shall be deemed to have been operated by the owner of the land for his

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

continental Transportation Corporation

Government's branch court of Seoul and Criminal District Court in the first instance (71Gahap116)

1. The appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 1,594,363 won, 1,494,363 won to the plaintiff 2, and 1,494,363 won, and 5% interest per annum from the day after the copy is served to the defendant, to the day after the completion is served.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

3. A provisional execution may be effected against paragraph (1).

1. Revocation of the part against the defendant among the original judgment and the plaintiffs' claim as to that part is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. The defendant's liability for damages

(1) At around 16:00 on July 26, 1971, Nonparty 1, an employee of the defendant, driven the 7-1152 truck in Gyeonggi-gun's Gyeonggi-gun's Gyeonggi-do's Gyeonggi-do's Gyeonggi-do's Gyeonggi-do's Gyeonggi-do's Gyeonggi-do's Gyeonggi-do's Gyeonggi-do's 5th share of the national highway, with approximately 15 Do Do Rabb's 5th share of the above vehicle and was on board the vehicle and was on board the vehicle at around 02:30, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for all damages caused by the accident, unless the accident proves that it was caused by the intention or suicide of Nonparty 2.

(2) The defendant alleged that the non-party 1, who is an employee of the defendant, was the so-called owner of the above vehicle and driving of the above vehicle by the non-party 1 at the time of the accident, had no relationship with the defendant's business act. Thus, the defendant did not operate the above vehicle for himself at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and considering the entries of the No. 1 certificate (traffic accident certificate) and the testimony of the court below and the non-party 1, the above owner of the above vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the non-party 3's entry of the above vehicle at the defendant's company. The non-party 1, who is the driver of the above vehicle at around 09:00, who is the above vehicle, was the driver of the above vehicle at the time of the above vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, the non-party 1's driver.

(3) The defendant asserts that the liability for damages should be mitigated because the occurrence of this accident conflicts with the non-party 2's gross negligence. Thus, in full view of the contents of the certificate No. 1 as mentioned above and the testimony of the non-party 5, non-party 1 as well as the witness of the court below as well as the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the non-party 1, as seen above, passed the opportunity education of the reserve forces at around 15:30 on July 26, 1971, after the non-party 1 passed the opportunity education of the reserve forces at the Changcheon-gun, Macheon-gun Office of the accident, and passed the above vehicle at the time to start the driving of the above vehicle at the time to return to five %), and the non-party 2, including the non-party 2, who tried to go home after receiving the education at the same place, could not be exempted from the liability for damages, and thus, the non-party 1's failure to take the above vehicle out of the vehicle without any other reason.

(4) Next, after the accident, the defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the plaintiffs, who are the bereaved families of Nonparty 2 after the accident. Further, the defendant paid KRW 30,000 to the plaintiffs, and the defendant agreed not to claim compensation more than the damages caused by the accident between the defendant and the defendant, so the plaintiffs' claim for this case is unjustifiable. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant made an agreement with the defendant with the defendant as the defendant head, and as alleged above, the fact that the plaintiffs received KRW 200,000 from the Counterespionage 20,000 and KRW 30,000 from the defendant from the Counterespionage 20,000 from the defendant after the accident, is nothing more than a ground for determining the amount of consolation money. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

2. Property losses;

진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 2호증(호적등본), 갑 5호증의 1 내지 9 (자동차운전면허증), 갑 6호증(간이생명표)의 각 기재내용과 원심증인 소외 7, 소외 5의 각 증언에 당사자변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 소외 2는 1945.2.22.생으로서 본건 사고로 인한 사망 당시 26세 5월 남짓된 건강체를 가진 남자이던 사실, 당시 기준의 동인의 여명은 42년 남짓되는 사실, 동인은 보통 제2종 자동차운전면허를 얻고 있었으므로 본건 사고가 없었다면 특단의 사유가 없는 한, 위 여명범위내이고 또 그때까지는 자동차운전업무에 종사할 수 있다고 인정되는 55세까지인 원고들 주장은 28년간은 자동차운전업무에 종사하여 매월 소득세액등을 공제하고 최소한도 원고들 주장의 금 20,000원 정도의 순수입을 얻을 수 있었을 것이라는 사실, 동인이 위와 같이 운전업무에 종사하는 경우 생활비로서는 매월 금 5,000원 정도를 소요하게 될 것이라는 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 반증없으니, 동인은 본건 사고로 인하여 위 28년간 매년 금 180,000원{(20,000원-5,000원)×12}씩의 얻을 수 있었을 순수입을 상실하여 동액의 손해를 입었다고 할 것인바, 원고들은 이를 소외 2의 사망당시 기준의 일시금으로 청구하므로 위 손해액에서 호프만식계산법에 따라 민법소정의 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 중간이자를 공제하여 위 당시 기준의 현가를 계산하면 금 3,099,798원(180,000×17.2211) 임이 명백한데, 앞에서 본 본건 사고발생에 있어서의 소외 2의 과실을 참작하면 이를 금 1,500,000원으로 감액인정함이 상당하고, 동인의 피고에 대한 동 손해배상청구권은 동인의 사망으로 인하여 위 갑 2호증의 기재내용에 의하여 인정되는 동인의 부인 원고 1에게 금 1,000,000원, 모임 원고 2에게 금 500,000원씩 상속되었다고 할 것이다.

3. Consolation money.

In light of the empirical rule, it is clear that the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the Dong-in's parents due to the death of the non-party 2 caused by the accident, suffered a serious mental pain. Accordingly, it is reasonable to pay consolation money for each mental suffering as well as 100,000 won for each of the above mental pain, in full view of the following circumstances: the circumstance of the accident in this case; the degree of the non-party's negligence in the accident in this case; the plaintiffs received each assistance in front of the defendant, etc.; the plaintiffs' living standards recognized by the non-party 7's testimony in the court below's decision; and all of the circumstances mentioned in this case

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 1,100,00 and the amount of KRW 600,000 and the amount of damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Procedure Act from February 14, 1972 to the date following the date on which the main part of the plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiff 2 is served to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims against the principal lawsuit are justified within this limit, and the other claims shall be dismissed in an unfair manner. Thus, the original judgment is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Young-han (Presiding Judge)