2016 Ghana 5164994 Damage(i)

1. A;

2. B

Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.

February 8, 2017

September 6, 2017

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 149,375,168 won, 146,375,168 won, and 15% interest per annum with respect to each of the above amounts, from February 11, 2016 to September 6, 2017, and 15% interest per annum with respect to each of the above amounts.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 35% of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 21,865,054 won and each of the above amounts with 5% interest per annum from February 11, 2016 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) C is a person who is engaged in driving of D class III truck (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”). At around 23:17 February 201, 2016, C, while driving the Defendant vehicle at a speed lower than 20%, C had a duty of care to properly operate the Defendant vehicle at a speed of 10% and to safely drive the vehicle at a speed exceeding 65 km per hour depending on six lanes, which is the 10-lane road, the downsides road, from the 10-lanes of the river. At that time, the restricted speed is 30 km, and at that time, the driver of the vehicle, who is engaged in driving the vehicle, has a duty of care to safely drive the front direction of the vehicle and the operation of the steering system at a speed of 20%, and the victim was negligent in driving the vehicle at the speed of 30 km and without any negligence in driving the vehicle at the speed above 30 km.

2) The Deceased did not have a spouse or child. The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased.

3) The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as stated in Gap's 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), 8 through 13

(b) the recognition and limitation of liability;

Therefore, pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs, who are bereaved families of the deceased and the deceased, for damages arising from the instant accident.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's vehicle that had passed the front side of the expressway is not liable for damages since he did not have the duty of care to anticipate the crossing or passage of the plaintiff.

Article 58 of the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians cannot walk or cross an expressway. Thus, barring any special circumstance, a driver of an automobile driving on an expressway is not obliged to pay a duty of care to drive the expressway when preparing for pedestrians to allow them to stop immediately, barring special circumstances. Therefore, even in cases where a driver caused an accident due to shocking the victim crossinging the expressway without permission, there was a circumstance in which the driver could anticipate such unauthorized crossing from a considerable distance in advance, and if the driver immediately turns or immediately turns on the expressway, he could avoid collision with the victim, barring special circumstances where the driver could have been negligent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da22525, Oct. 15, 196; 8Do1484, Mar. 28, 1989; 98Da1535, Apr. 28, 1998).

In addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, the place where the accident in this case occurred is located at a speed of not more than 30 kilometers per hour. Furthermore, since the time of the accident in this case occurred at night, it was a place where it should be done at a speed of not more than 24 kilometers per hour, due to the structural problems of the location of the accident in this case, it was the problem in the local media because the personnel of the charge station or the residents of the surrounding areas frequently cross the road without permission, and even if it was found that the bus stop was installed at the right edge of the vehicle in this case, the deceased could not immediately cross the bus at the above bus stop, and even if the driver of the vehicle in this case was found to have been at the speed of not more than 5 kilometers per hour, it was highly likely that the driver of the vehicle in this case could not cross the vehicle at the speed of not more than 4 kilometers per hour after having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of the vehicle in this case at the right edge of the vehicle in this case.

However, it cannot be denied that the deceased's negligence who was crossing the accident site of this case prohibited from crossing was also the cause of the accident of this case. In light of all the above circumstances, the defendant's liability for damages is limited to 60% (the deceased's negligence 40%).

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages shall be the same as the corresponding item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages, and the period for calculating the amount for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but less than the last month and less than the amount shall be discarded. The current value calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the principle of simple interest deduction at the rate of 5/12 per month from the intermediate interest rate. And

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

1) Personal information: The basic information on the deceased and the basic information on the daily income as stated in the column of “basic information”.

2) Maximum working age and income: It can be recognized that the amount equivalent to the daily wage for adults can have been obtained for 22 days on an average monthly basis from December 11, 2017 to 60 years of age expected to complete military service.

3) Cost of living: 1/3 of income from the date of the instant accident to the maximum working age (the fact that there is no dispute)

4) Calculation: As stated in the “actual income” column among the basic matters of the deceased and the “actual income” column of the “actual income of the deceased.”

5) Sub-determination: 361,250,560 won;

(b) Funeral expenses.

There is no dispute over the fact that the plaintiff A paid five million won.

(c) Limitation of liability: 60% of the Defendant’s liability (see Article 1-2(2));

(d) Condolence money;

Considering the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the background of the accident of this case, the circumstances after the accident, the age of the deceased, and the relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs, the deceased shall be recognized as KRW 68,00,000, and KRW 4,000,000, respectively.

(e) Inheritance;

1) Amount to be inherited: 284,750,336 won (=216,750,336 won = Property damage (=361,250,560 won x 60%) + 68,000,000 won of consolation money);

2) Inheritance shares: Each of the plaintiffs 1/2

3) Inheritance amount: Each of the plaintiffs 142,375,168 won;

(h) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A 149,375,168 won [the inheritance amount of KRW 142,375,168 + funeral expenses of KRW 3,00,00,000 + funeral expenses of KRW 5,000 + 60%) + 146,375,168 won for the plaintiff B (i.e., inheritance amount of KRW 142,375,168 + consolation money of KRW 4,00,000 + damages for delay) and damages of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from February 11, 2016, which is the date of the accident of this case, to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to perform, from September 6, 2017, which is the date of this judgment, to pay damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum as stipulated in each of the special cases concerning the promotion of litigation, etc. from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-woo

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.