In a case where a driver concealed a parked cargo vehicle while driving a car with an air bags, the case holding that comparative negligence was set off on the ground that the victim's fault in driving and the air bags could not prevent the damage even if they were operated normally.

In a case where a driver's damages for a car in the company manufacturing air bags due to the EFF operation were calculated, the case holding that the victim's fault was recognized as 40% and offseted by negligence on the ground that the victim's fault could not be prevented even if the EFF operated normally, even if the EFF operated normally.

Articles 396 and 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Nam-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant Co., Ltd. (Attorney Oh Jeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 23,498,064 won, the amount of 1,000,000 won per annum from February 4, 1995 to June 11, 1996, and the amount of 25 percent per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the other is the defendant's own burden.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 46,113,491 won, the amount of 2,00,000 won per annum from February 4, 1995 to the date of this decision, and the amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) At around 00:10 on February 4, 1995, Plaintiff 1 driven a rocketing car (vehicle number omitted) with the second line of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 2nd parallel of the 3rd parallel of the 4th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 4th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 5th parallel of the 1995. The 1st parallel of the 4th parallel of the 1st parallel of the 1st parallel of the 7Nu9471, which was parked on the right side of the 5th parallel of the 7th parallel of the 1995.

(2) In the said car, the air bags manufactured and sold by the Defendant Company were installed, and the front part of the said car was shocked to the extent that it might be severely damaged at the time of the accident, but the said air bags were not operated.

(3) As a result, the above air bags do not operate in a situation where the shock power is reduced at the time of a collision, and the air bags, which are air exhausters, are unfolded between Hands and drivers, and the driver's face and chests, are different in the size of shock power delivered to a shocker depending on shock direction and shock level, such as ① collision direction at the time of a collision, ② low speed collision in which protection can be provided only with electric uniforms or safety bells, ③ collision situation where the shock is not transmitted to the shocker, such as entering the bottom of the other party's vehicle and entering the bottom of the collision, etc.

(4) Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the parents of Plaintiff 1.

(5) If so, in light of the speed, degree and degree of damage of the above vehicle at the time of the accident, and the first collision part and direction, etc., it cannot be deemed that the above air bags are not operated. Nevertheless, the above air bags are not operated due to the defect in the above air bags, barring special circumstances. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above accident.

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 9-1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, Eul evidence No. 3-1, 2, and the whole purport of oral argument

B. Limitation on liability

The plaintiff 1, as the plaintiff 1, was negligent in causing the accident of this case by driving the accident site where the speed limit is 60 km a speed of 120 km a speed without due care at the time of the accident and without due response (the defendant did not claim that the plaintiff did not sell the safety level at the time of the accident, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). The plaintiff's injury occurred due to the two collisions, and the second collision did not have any relation with the operation of the above air bags, and further, it is difficult to conclude that the part of the plaintiff's injury was most of the body part and the above air bags would have been prevented from being considerably and completely prevented, but it is reasonable to consider these circumstances in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, but it is reasonable to view that the comparative negligence ratio is 40% (40%).

[Premium] The same as the above A.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The loss of lost income equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the capacity to operate in the instant accident is 25,298,053 won calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident based on the method of deducting intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows, based on the facts and assessment as follows:

(1) Facts and evaluation of the recognition;

(A) Gender, age, and life expectancy: on November 25, 1970, as male who was born on November 25, 1970 and left 24 years old at the time of the instant accident, the life expectancy shall be 45.47 years old.

(B) Actual income: 27,218 won for daily wage for urban day around September 1994, and 29,93 won for May 1, 1995.

(C) Treatment period: Hospitalization or continuous outpatient treatment from the date of the accident until August 3, 1995;

(d)The ratio of residual disability and loss of operating capacity;

Disability due to spine damage: 14%

(e) Operation period: 22 per month from the date of the accident until the date on which he reaches 60 years of age;

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, and 11 1 and 2 1 and 2 1, respectively, the result of the party member's physical examination commission to the president of the Gannam University Hospital, and the purport of the whole oral argument

(2) mountain.

(A) From the date of the accident to May 3, 1995 (for the convenience of calculation, the wages of KRW 27,218 per day until May 3, 1995)

27,218 won 】 22 days 】 2.9752 】 1,781,537 won (the same shall apply hereinafter)

(B) Three months from the following day to August 3, 1995:

29,933 won 】 22 days 】 (5.9140-2.9752) =1,935,276 won

(C) 421 months from September 30, 1995, sought by the Plaintiff, until November 25, 2030, the operation period of which is 421 months (less than month).

29,933 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 0.14 (240-5.9140) = 21,581,240 won (a total of 240 won to avoid excessive compensation)

(d) Consolidated: (a) + (b) + (c) + (25,298,053 Won).

(b) Medical expenses, etc.

Plaintiff 1’s expenditure of KRW 3,874,290 for medical expenses. At the time of the closing of the argument in this case, the Plaintiff 1’s expenditure of KRW 4,200,00 for anti-speculing correction would have been expected to have been required.

[Evidence] The statement No. 10 and each of the above physical appraisal entrustment results, the whole purport of the pleading

(c) Nursing expenses;

(1) Period of opening: Three months from the date of the accident to May 3, 1995;

Cost of opening: 27,218 won for the daily wage for urban day around September 1995, and 29,93 won for the amount of 29,93 won for May 1, 1995.

[Evidence] 1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 7 and 11, each of the above physical appraisal results, the whole purport of the pleading

(b) Mountain village: 27,218 won ¡¿ 87 days + 29,93 won ¡¿ 3 days = 2,457,765 won;

(d) Set-off of negligence;

(1) The defendant's ratio of liability: 60% (see the above 1-B).

(2) Calculation: 35,830,108 won [25,298,053 won from daily income + Medical expenses, etc. (3,874,290 won + 4,200,00 won + 2,457,765 won from nursing expenses) + 0.6 =21,498,064 won

(e) consolation money;

(1) Grounds: Ghana, family relations, property and level of education, details and result of the accident, existence and degree of negligence of the victim, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(2) The amount determined;

Plaintiff 1: 2,000,000 won

Plaintiff 2, 3: each gold 1,000,000

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 23,498,064 won (property damage 21,498,064 won + 2,000,000 won) and the amount of 1,00,000 won for each of the above money to the plaintiff 2 and 3 as well as the amount of 1,00,000 won for each of the above money from February 4, 1995 to June 11, 1996, which is the date of the accident of this case, and the amount of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from the next day to the date of the full payment. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore,

Judges Go Sung-sung