Whether the claim for consolation money due to life infringement is against the deceased’s father’s own father.

In addition to relatives stipulated in Article 752 of the Civil Act, a person who is not his/her relatives can claim consolation money by proving his/her mental suffering, and the spouse of his/her lineal descendant who has lost his/her life due to another person's illegal act shall receive from his/her lineal descendant's mental suffering, so he/she may claim consolation money for consolation money.

Articles 750, 751, and 752 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1307 Decided September 5, 1967

Plaintiff 1 and ten plaintiffs Kim-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The Republic of Korea Litigation Officer decoration, Song-il, the clun, the clun, the last order

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na944 delivered on September 7, 1977

All appeals by Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the above plaintiffs are assessed against each of the same plaintiffs.

The part of the judgment below against Plaintiff 11 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Since the court's precedents (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1263, Jul. 20, 1971) have been adopted to the effect that a male who is a Korean ordinary health body for scambrus can engage in agricultural labor until the age of 55, and thus, the court below's decision in this case, which did not appear in special circumstances, can generally be engaged in labor until the age of 60, with the same purport as just and opposite to the above opinion, cannot be adopted.

2. The judgment below held that the accident of this case competes with the negligence of the victim non-party and considered it in the calculation of the amount of damages. In accordance with the records, such measures are acceptable, and it is not reasonable to consider that there was a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or excessive negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the theory of lawsuit on this point is groundless.

3. The judgment of the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there was income from the fishery business of the deceased at the time of the death of the deceased, and recognized the future income from the general agricultural labor. In this regard, the record is not accepted and it is not possible to accept such measures, and the lawsuit theory on this point cannot be adopted because it cannot be found that there was an incomplete deliberation or a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory

4. According to the records, it is clear that the plaintiff claims 519,600 won in total, as funeral expenses, such as mapos, light, white, powder, powder, fluor, tobacco, liquor, dried fish, dried meat, flowers, and pipes, as well as bonus group allowances, and other miscellaneous expenses required for funeral expenses, and there is no subsequent change. Since the court below did not claim 42,000 won in total, it was just in its conclusion that the plaintiff did not accept it, even if it was erroneous in its decision, even though it was not originally determined, it was not erroneous in its decision, and therefore there is no merit in the theory of lawsuit on this issue.

5. In light of the records, the court below cannot see that the amount of consolation money which the court below cited against the plaintiffs except Plaintiff 11 is less than the amount of consolation money, and the calculation of consolation money belongs to the free discretion of the fact-finding court, and there is no theory about this point.

6. The judgment of the court below ruled that the plaintiff 11's mobilization was a substitute part that rejected the plaintiff 11's claim for consolation money, and there was no blood relation with the Si father, but it was merely a slicker due to the death of the above non-party deceased who is a family member living together, and thus, it did not reach the level

Article 752 of the Civil Act provides that the claimant for consolation money in the case of infringement of life, but this does not limit the claimant's right to consolation money, but the persons provided in the same Article are merely able to mitigate their burden of proof of mental suffering, and even relatives other than relatives provided in the same Article can claim consolation money pursuant to Articles 750 and 751 of the same Act, which are general principles (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da1307 delivered on September 5, 1967). Thus, in this case where the spouse of lineal descendant of the victim who lost his life due to other person's illegal act should receive consolation money from his lineal descendant in light of the empirical rule, unless there are special circumstances, so it is reasonable to see that the spouse of the victim's lineal descendant who lost his life can claim consolation money from his mental suffering, and it is reasonable to see that there is any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to this case's claim for consolation money.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff 11 is reversed and remanded, the other plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)