The case recognizing the negligence of passengers of chartered buses

The driver of the Dognais was recommended to start again on the following day, and the driver of the Dognais was recommended to start again after the day after the day, but the accident occurred when the passengers continued to drive on the Dognas by taking the Dognas, instead of taking such a recommendation, the accident was caused to the passengers.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Bank of Korea

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap4312) in the first instance trial

1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of appeal, the costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall reduce the claim of KRW 1,893,034 against the plaintiff 1 and 2 for each of 1,00,000 won, KRW 734,770 (the extension of KRW 658,607 at the original trial from the original trial) to the plaintiff 4 and 5 for each of 969,540 won (the claim of KRW 1,893,034 at the original trial shall be reduced from the original trial; the plaintiff 5 shall expand the amount of KRW 817,214 at the original trial) to the plaintiff 5 and 6 for each of 5,3470 won (the port of KRW 458,607 at the original trial shall be expanded from the original trial to the final trial) and the provisional execution shall be paid at the rate of KRW 5 percent per annum from March 26, 1972.

Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the original judgment is revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.

Plaintiffs: (Incidental Appeal) The part against the Plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount of KRW 50,00, KRW 334,770, KRW 470, and KRW 319,540 for each of them to the plaintiff 4 and 5, and KRW 184,770 for each of them to the plaintiff 6 and 7, and an amount of KRW 184,770 for each of them and an annual amount of KRW 5 percent from March 26, 1972 to the full payment.

1. Liability for damages;

If the contents of evidence Nos. 5 through 9 (the written indictment, the verification protocol, the suspect examination protocol, etc.) of the court below are all the purport of Non-party 1's testimony and the parties' argument, the defendant received a request from the Economic Planning Board, which is the defendant's supervisory office on March 24, 1972, for a 14:00 on the following day, he was waiting before the citizen's center by giving the Non-party 1, who is the driver of the vehicle belonging to the defendant bank, for a 14:0 on the designated date and time, he was not 42 persons working at the citizen's center, such as Non-party 2, etc., who are the victim, and it is difficult for the non-party 1 to recognize the above wheel of the vehicle as the wheel 1's driver's duty of care on the right side of the vehicle, and it is hard for the non-party 1 to find it as the wheel 4-meter of the above tideland, which is the 10-meter of the road.

Therefore, the death of the non-party 2 is deemed to have been caused by the negligence in the execution of the defendant's business, so the defendant is his employer, who is responsible for compensating for the damage caused by the death of the non-party 2.

The defendant has fulfilled his best care in the appointment and supervision of the non-party 1, and even if he exercised his care in supervising the appointment and supervision of the non-party 1, the defendant defense that the non-party 1 could not prevent the occurrence of the accident, and thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for compensation. However, there is no evidence to prove the above facts of the defendant's assertion, and therefore there is no evidence to prove the above facts

However, the defendant, on the ground that there was negligence on the part of the non-party 2 in the accident at issue, raised a defense of comparative negligence, and the whole purport of the statement and pleading in Eul evidence No. 1 (written petition) which had no dispute over the establishment of each evidence revealed above, the non-party 1, in accordance with the direction of the passengers via the Southern-Eup at 21:00 of the date of the accident, discovered that the road is heep, the road is narrow, and the road is narrow, and that the road is not good due to the river surface of the preceding day. Since the first day of the accident, the large-scale operation is expected to cause the danger of the accident, and the passengers, including the non-party 2, were to return to the Southern-Eup, and the next day started again, and the passengers, etc. were forced to make a promise to do so, and thus, the non-party 1, who continued the accident, should have been aware of the fact that the accident occurred due to the non-party 2's negligence, such as the victim's negligence.

2. Scope of damages.

According to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (Simplified Life Table, and Copy of Family Register) without dispute, the non-party 2 was born on Nov. 14, 1936 and his average life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life life of 34 years and 29.47 years at the time of the accident. Thus, if the accident did not occur, the non-party 2 could continue to life until he reached the age of 64 years. And according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (written confirmation, retirement certificate, etc.), the non-party 2 was a state public official of Grade 4, 930 won at the time of the accident, and 5,000 won at the rate of 9,70 won at the time of the above accident, and the non-party 2 did not receive the above amount of the non-party 3's salary and 400 won at the time of the above accident until the age of 24 years and 5 months.7 months.

However, according to the above evidence Nos. 4 and 5, plaintiff 3, plaintiff 4, and 5 can recognize the facts that they are their children, and plaintiff 6, and 7 did not peep, the plaintiffs jointly inherited the above claim for damages against the defendant according to their respective legal shares. Thus, in calculating the plaintiff 4 and 5's shares of 600,000 won and 300,000 won, respectively, the plaintiff 4 and 5 acquired the claim for damages of 300,000 won.

3. Consolation money.

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 who are the father of the non-party 2 who is recognized by the above Gap evidence No. 4, and the remaining plaintiffs who were their wife suffered a considerable amount of mental suffering due to the death of the non-party 2 caused by the accident in this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the above plaintiffs' mental suffering in money. Thus, considering the age, property level, the status relationship with the above deceased, the circumstance of the accident in this case, and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments, it is reasonable to pay consolation money in 10,000 won for the plaintiff 3, and 50,000 won for the remaining plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages with 50,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and 400,000 won for each of them to the plaintiff 4 and 5, 50, 650,000 won for each of them to the plaintiffs 6 and 7, and 350,000 won for each of them, and 50,000 won for each of them to the plaintiff 6 and 7, and 50% for each of them, since the plaintiffs' claims for damages against the plaintiff 1 and 2 are reasonable within the above recognized scope, and the rest is dismissed for this reason. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just, and all of the plaintiffs and the defendants' appeals are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the Civil Procedure Act, Article 89, and Article 93 for each of them.

Judges Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)