Whether the new State Compensation Act can be applied in the case where the arguments are closed after the enforcement of the Act.

Article 3 (5) of the former State Compensation Act (Act No. 1899 of March 3, 67) shall not apply to cases that occurred before the enforcement of the same Act, even if the arguments are closed after the enforcement of the same Act.

Article 3 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1261 Decided September 5, 1967

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na2693 delivered on June 7, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Litigation Performers

According to the established facts of the first instance judgment cited by the original judgment, it cannot be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the victim in the occurrence of the present accident, and if the evidence adopted by the said judgment is compared to the same judgment, it can be seen that the victim was set up in the road friendly rule that does not impede the progress of the perpetrator's vehicle.

Therefore, in this case where the defendant did not have the burden of proving that the victim was negligent, the judgment of the court below did not ex officio deliberate and decide on the facts of the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the arguments are groundless.

Judgment on the second ground for the same reason

Even if the argument of the court below was closed after the enforcement of the new State Compensation Act, it is interpreted as a source of view that the new State Compensation Act cannot be applied to the accident that occurred before the enforcement of the new State Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da1261 delivered on September 5, 1967). Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the original judgment as an opposing opinion.

Judgment on the third ground for the same reason

The plaintiff 1 suffered a serious injury to the extent that the plaintiff 1 would lose 40% of the labor force, such as the Won-si, and the father's mother, spouse or other plaintiffs, who are his children, should receive mental distress according to our rule of experience. In addition, Article 752 of the Civil Code provides that "a person who injures another's life shall be liable for damages even in cases where the victim's lineal ascendant, lineal descendant or spouse does not have any property damage to the victim's lineal descendant or spouse," and it is not the purport of recognizing liability for damages to the mental injury only in cases of infringing another's life, but it is interpreted that the person who has the right to claim consolation money and the victim's legal interest are defined as an example. Thus, there is no argument to criticize the original judgment as a dissenting opinion.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Kimchim (Presiding Judge)