Plaintiff (Law Firm Newcheon, Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Mez Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seoman, Attorney Yang Gyeong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Commercial Insurance Co., Ltd.

August 31, 2012

Gwangju District Court Decision 2011Da25430 Decided January 27, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are assessed against the Defendant, and the costs of appeal arising from the participation in the Defendant’s Intervenor are assessed against

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 93,756,80 won with 5% interest per annum from April 11, 2010 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) On April 11, 2010, Nonparty 1 driven a dump truck (vehicle number 1 omitted) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on April 13:40, 201, followed the two-lanes of the two-lanes from the land three-lanes in front of the creative industry, Taeyang-dong, Taeyang-si, by driving a dump truck (vehicle number 1 omitted), and driving along the two-lanes from the land three-lanes. Nonparty 2’s (vehicle number 2 omitted) driving on the right side of the vehicle (hereinafter “vehicle”) driven by Nonparty 2’s driver on the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff is a mother of the deceased, who is a sole inheritor, and the Defendant is an insurer who concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1-1 to 27, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. Whether liability is limited

1) The defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that the deceased was on board the deceased and was on the accident of this case, and the plaintiff received 20% reduction from the auxiliary participant, who is the insurer of the deceased's vehicle on board, from the assistant participant, for the reason that he was on board the deceased, and agreed to do so, the defendant's liability for damages should also be limited on the ground that he was on board.

2) Determination

In full view of the purport of the testimony of Non-Party 2 as a witness of the first instance trial, the deceased and Non-Party 2 were a staff member, and the deceased proposed that Non-Party 2 wanted to do string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of string of 2006

However, in the case where the deceased's liability for damages against one of the joint tortfeasors can be limited on the ground of the accompanying succession as well as the defendant's liability for damages, which is the insurer of the other party's vehicle, should be recognized as a relative effect in principle as long as the liability for the other party's vehicle is based on the personal and internal relationship between the victim and the operator, and if the liability for the other party's vehicle is reduced on the ground of the accompanying succession, it would result in equally interpreting the reduction rate due to the accompanying succession unrelated to the cause of the victim's fault as the same as the rate of negligence itself, and it is against the protection of the victim. In light of the above, in this case where there is a circumstance that can regard the driver's negligence of the deceased's driver's driver's negligence as the deceased's negligence, or there is no evidence that there is a ground for offsetting negligence against the deceased, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

2. Scope of damages.

In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages shall be as specified in the relevant item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages (Provided, That in principle, the period for calculating the amount shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than a month shall be included in the side on which the amount is less than a month, and less than a won and less than the last month shall be discarded, and the current price calculation at the time of the accident shall be governed by the method of deducting the interim

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

(a) Actual income:

1) Personal information: To be stated in the column of the attached damages calculation sheet.

2) Occupation, income, and maximum working age: Income equivalent to the urban daily wage on February 20, 2046, each 22th day of February, 204, serving 60 years of age.

(c) Deductions for living expenses: 1/3 of income;

4) Calculation: as shown in the separate sheet of calculation.

(b) Funeral expenses.

The plaintiff asserted that 5 million won was paid as funeral expenses of the deceased, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, 3 million won was recognized as funeral expenses in consideration of the degree of recognition of funeral expenses and the empirical rule.

(d) Mutual aid:

The amount of KRW 234 million paid by the Intervenor, who is the insurer of the deceased’s vehicle on board, shall be deducted from the advance payment for damages.

(e) consolation money;

The following shall be determined as consolation money in consideration of the background of the instant accident, the age of the deceased, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased, the amount agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Korea Commercial and Insurance Co., Ltd., and all other circumstances

(a) Deceased: 40 million won;

2) Plaintiff: 20 million won

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 71,756,800 won and the delay damages at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, which is the date of the first instance judgment, which is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation from April 11, 201, which is the date of the accident in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Song Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)