Cases where there is an error of not taking into account the fault of the victim into account in calculating damages;

If a parent of a victim who is six years of age at the time of the accident is found to have been negligent in leaving the road where traffic movement is frequent without a custody manager, only the above negligence was considered in the determination of the amount of consolation money, but it was erroneous that this negligence was not considered in the determination of the amount of compensation for property damage of the victim.

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

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Countries

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1498 delivered on December 16, 1966, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1498 delivered on December 16, 196

(1) Of the original judgment against the Defendant against Plaintiff Kim Tae-tae, the part ordering the payment of KRW 181,480, among the part against which the Defendant lost, is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

(2) All of the Defendant’s remaining appeals against Plaintiff Kim Tae-tae and the Defendant’s appeals against Plaintiff Kim Jong-sik, Lee Jong-ro, Lee Jong-soo, and Cho Jong-tae are dismissed.

(2) Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal concerning the dismissal of paragraph (2) are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant Litigation Performers shall be examined.

The appeal is in violation of the law of not taking into account the negligence of the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 1, who neglected to take care of the plaintiff 3's property damage (181,480 won) for the part concerning the plaintiff 1's property damage (6 years old at the time of the accident), and the minor of the plaintiff 3 (6 years old at the time of the accident), without taking into account the negligence of the plaintiff 1's property damage on the road where the traffic movement is frequent. Based on evidence, the court below acknowledged the negligence of the plaintiff 2 and 3 as the parent of the plaintiff 1, who caused the plaintiff 1 to leave the road where the traffic movement is frequent without the care manager, and the above negligence was considered only for the determination of the claim amount of consolation money with the plaintiff 5's property damage, since there was no punishment for considering this negligence in the determination of the amount of consolation money for the plaintiff 1's property damage, the judgment of the court below did not set off the defendant's failure which accepted the plaintiff 1's property damage.

However, as to the part which cited consolation money against the plaintiffs, the defendant's appeal against this part of this case shall not be dismissed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-dong, the last Ma-man