Death of a person boarding a truck and comparative negligence;

Anyone is unable to board a truck unless there are special circumstances, so the victim's negligence is also concurrent in the event that the victim gets on board the truck but died of an accident.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant Limited Partnership Company

Daegu District Court (73Gahap247) in the first instance

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 3,275,746 won to the plaintiff 1 and 1,787,873 won to the plaintiff 2 with an annual interest rate of 5% from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In light of the whole purport of the parties’ arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 where the whole authenticity is inferred, and considering the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 where the whole authenticity is inferred, the non-party 1, who is the driver of the defendant company (vehicle No. 1 omitted), shall complete night motion picture screening at Daejeon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon-gun, around 23:00 on October 31, 1972, and shall have 40 persons such as the deceased non-party 2, and shall have 50 persons such as the deceased non-party 2, on the same day while operating at the same time as the 6th dong-dong, and at the same time, it is evident that the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who died of the engine 50 meters from the beginning of the 6th dong-dong, and the non-party 1, who died of the 5th son-dong 1, who did not have been able to see the remaining 5th son-dong 1, etc.

Thus, the defendant is a person who operates an automobile for himself as stipulated in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and since the accident occurred due to its operation, the defendant is the parent of the deceased non-party 2 and is responsible for compensating the plaintiff, etc. who is the property successor.

나아가 그 손해액에 관하여 살피건대, 위 망인이 본건 사고당시 만 16세의 남아임은 앞서본 바이고 16세되는 건강한 남아의 평균여명은 46.13.년임은 당원의 현저한 사실이므로 특단의 사정이 엿보이지 않는 본건에 있어 위 망인이 본건 사고로 사망하지 아니하였더라면 그대로 성장하여 군복무를 마친 24세부터 평균여명 이내인 55세까지 32년간을 일용노동에 종사하여 그 노임상당의 수익을 얻을 수 있다고 보아야 할 것인바, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증의 1,2의 각 기재에 의하면, 본건 사고당시 한국의 일용노동임금은 1일 최소한 금 858원이므로 월평균 가동일수를 25일로 잡아 노동자 1인의 월수익은 금 21,450원이 되나 위 금액중 3분의 1에 해당하는 금액이 생계비로 소비됨은 원,피고 스스로 시인하므로 결국 매월 순수익이 금 14,300원이고, 1년간 순수익은 금 171,600원이 되는바 앞에서 말한 24부터 55세까지의 연차적 수입을 호프만식계산법에 의하여 연 5푼의 중간이자를 공제하고 위 사망당시 일시지급의 현가로 계산하면 금 2,648,635원(원미만 버림)=〔171,600×{21.30928178(기수 39의 호프만지수)-5.87434192(기수 7의 호프만지수)｝〕이 된다 할 것이고, 한편 위 망인은 이건 사고로 1개월이상 입원가료타가 끝내 사망하므로서 그동안 정신적 고통이 컸을 것임은 능히 짐작할 수 있는 바이므로 그 정신적 고통을 위자함에는 금 300,000원으로서 상당하다 할 것이어서 위 망인은 이건 사고로 인하여 재산상손해 및 위자료합계 금 2,948,635원의 손해를 입었다고 할 것이나 사람은 특별한 사정이 없는한 추럭의 적재함에 편승할 수 없음에도 불구하고 위 망인은 본건 추럭의 적재함에 편승하였다가 본건과 같은 사고가 발생한 것이므로 본건 사고로 인한 손해발생에는 그의 과실도 경합되었다고 아니할 수 없고, 본건 사고로 인하여 피고가 배상할 손해액을 산정함에 있어 이를 참작하면 그손해액은 금 2,100,000원으로 정함이 상당하다 할 것이고, 이를 민법 제1009조 소정의 상속분에 따라 안분하면 결국 원고 1은 금 1,400,000원, 원고 2는 금 700,000원의 손해배상채권을 각 상속받은 것이라 할 것이다.

Next, in relation to the amount of consolation money of the plaintiffs, it can be able to see in light of our experience that the plaintiffs lost children due to unexpected accidents such as the above fash and caused no significant mental suffering. If we look at the causes of accidents, degree of negligence of driving water, and all other circumstances revealed in this case, it is reasonable to pay consolation money for the above mental suffering of the plaintiffs as 200,000 won, respectively.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the total amount of KRW 1,600,00 and the total amount of KRW 900,000,00 which was recognized as above to the plaintiff 2 and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum of the Civil Code from July 5, 1973 to the full payment after the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit is justified within the above recognition limit, and the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the principal lawsuit is justified, and this conclusion is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Code with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Judge)