206Gahap9822 damages, etc.

1. RoO;

2. MaximumO;

3. MaximumO;

O Co., Ltd.

June 19, 2007

July 3, 2007

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff union 00 19,79,001 won, plaintiff 19,792,667 won, and each of them shall be 5% per annum from November 26, 2005 to July 3, 2007, and 20% per annum from July 4, 2007 to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 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 plaintiff OO 59,584,650 won per annum from November 26, 2005 to June 30, 2006, and 20% per annum from July 1, 2006 to the date of full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff O 59,584,657 won per annum.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Basic facts;

1) The Defendant is operating a golf course of 00 OO in Chungcheongnam-si.

2) On November 2005, 26: 15:30 on December 26, 2005, at around 15:15:30, the network maximum 00, which is the customers of the above golf course, and the three members of the said 3 members, were on board the Defendant’s Kat (ULB leading car) owned by the sports assistant 00, which was on board the back seat of the Kat, and the victim’s net maximum 00 was removed from the Kat to the road outside of the Kat (hereinafter “instant accident”). The victim’s network maximum 00 was killed due to brain hnephalopty and cerebral hemoptysis at the hospital affiliated with the university of 00 university located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, on December 16:27, 2005.

3) The Plaintiff No. 00 is the wife of the net maximum of 00, and the Plaintiff’s maximum of 00 and maximum of 00 are the children of the network maximum of 00.

[Grounds for Recognition of Basic Facts] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 through 4, 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Grounds for liability

1) According to the above facts, the defendant is a person who operates the carart on his behalf and is obligated to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

2) In relation to this, the Defendant asserts that the above carart is not an automobile, and thus, the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act does not apply. However, the above carart is an instrument manufactured for the purpose of movement on land by an engine and it is clear that it is an automobile as stipulated in Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Automobile Management Act. Therefore,

1) The defendant's assertion

The instant accident is an accident in which a person, while the net maximum of 00 karts and moves, has been marbling away from the floor to the Presidential Decree, and is not an accident due to the negligence of 500, and thus, the Defendant shall not be held liable for damages.

2) Determination

In addition, in the case of death of a passenger, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the accident of this case occurred due to the circumstance as alleged by the defendant. In addition, in the case of death of the passenger, the exemption from liability is allowed only when the death was caused by the passenger's intentional act or suicide (Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act). Even according to the defendant's assertion, the death of the deceased is not caused by intentional act or suicide, and thus, the defendant's assertion of exemption from liability is without merit.

D. Limitation on liability

1) The defendant's assertion

In light of the road condition and the speed of the carart at the time of the accident, the accident in this case is likely to compete with the fault that had not been properly seated in the carart, so the defendant's responsibility should be limited.

2) Determination

B. In full view of each description or image of evidence Nos. 5 (including paper numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of field inspection, the fact that a rail is installed on both sides of the back seat of the net top of the cart at the time of the accident in this case and the cart roof is knife. The highest driving speed of the cart is 20 km per hour, and it may be rapid on an acute slope. However, even if the place of the accident was completely down, it seems that the above highest driving speed was more rapid than the above highest driving speed, even if the place of the accident was completely down, it appears that the road at the site of the accident in this case would have reached as soon as possible. In light of this, the fact that the road at the scene of the accident is bend or that the degree was not serious. In light of this, it appears that the net maximum 00 did not properly put the hand or side kick, which was attached to its roof, and that there was an unstable accident in this case.

Thus, the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the net maximum 00, and such mistake does not reach the extent of exemption from the defendant's liability, but since the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damage, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is 40% of the fault ratio of the maximum 00 in light of the above facts recognized above, the defendant's liability is limited to 60% which is the remainder.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The net net income loss equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the lost capacity due to the instant accident is KRW 70,457.25 won as follows. [Reasons for recognition of lost income] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(i) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

A) Personal information: To be stated in the separate sheet of calculation of damages (basic matters).

B) The basis for calculating income: 5,252 won, which is an urban daily wage, at the time of the instant accident, from the date of the instant accident to the maximum working age, is recognized as the deceased’s income. (The Plaintiff asserts that, as the net maximum 00 was a teacher’s qualification certificate at the time of the instant accident, and could obtain future income equivalent to the said wages, it should be calculated based on the monthly salary of an educational expert. However, according to the evidence No. 5, it can be recognized that the net 00 was a teacher’s license. However, in light of the results of fact-finding with the head of the Daegu District Tax Office, it can be recognized that the deceased did not have a teacher’s license up to the present time in full view of the purport of the argument as a result of fact-finding with respect to the teachers’ license, it is difficult to confirm that the deceased would work for the future, and there is no other evidence to prove that he would work for the future in the future. Accordingly,

(b) Cost of living: 1/3;

3) Calculation: 70,457.225 won (the same shall apply to the entry in the column for calculation of damages in attached Form). Funeral expenses of KRW 3,00,000, and Plaintiff No. 100 shall be paid (the fact that there is no dispute).

1) The scope of the defendant's liability: 60% (see the above paragraph (d))

2) Damages after offsetting negligence: Net maximum amount of 42,274,35 won, Plaintiff Nowon-gu00,800,000 won (attached Form [Attachment Table of Calculation of Damages]; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(d) Condolence money;

1) Reasons for consideration: The deceased’s age, occupation and family relation, the background and result of the instant accident, the deceased’s negligence, and other circumstances shown in the present pleading.

(ii) the amount determined;

Man-O : 20,000,000

Plaintiff Nowon 00: 5,000,000 other Plaintiffs: each of 2,000,000 won

(e) Inheritance relationship;

1) Inheritance shares: Plaintiffs No. 003/7, Plaintiffs Choi 00, and 2/7, respectively.

2) Inheritance amount: The sum of damages (70,457,225 + 20,00,000 + 20,000,000 x 3/7), Plaintiff’s maximum 0, and Plaintiff’s maximum 17,792,667 won (70,457,225 + 20,000,000 x 2/7).

1) Plaintiff No. 00: 33,489,001 won (the inheritance amount of KRW 26,689,001 + Funeral expenses of KRW 1,80,000 + solatium of KRW 5,00,000)

2) Plaintiffs Maximum 00. 00: 19,792,667 won each (the inheritance amount of KRW 17,792,667 + the consolation money of KRW 2,00,000)

3. Conclusion

If so, the defendant is obligated to claim against the plaintiff 00 won, 33,489,001 won, 19,792,667 won, and each of them from November 26, 2005, the date of the accident of this case to July 3, 2007, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until July 3, 2007, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Therefore, each of the claims by the plaintiffs of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge, 00

Judges Dok00

Judges Choi 00