Cases recognizing a claim for damages to the spouse of a lineal descendant of the victim

Since the provision of the Civil Code is interpreted to be only an example of the person who has the right to claim consolation money and the person who has the legal interest in damage, the person who has the personal relation with the victim and the person who has the legal interest in the victim can also claim compensation for the mental damage he received.

Article 752 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1414 delivered on August 29, 1967 (Kakad 168, 169), Article 752 (10) 547 of the Civil Act, Article 2 (72) of the State Compensation Act, Article 67Da2047 delivered on December 18, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 15No3Da2047 delivered on December 18, 1967, Article 752 (14) 547 of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff 1 and 34 others

Korea

Busan District Court (71 Gohap948)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 534,00 per 10,00 for each of the plaintiffs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 for each of the above amounts of KRW 5,00 per annum from July 6, 1971 to the full payment.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the other one by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 30,00 won to the plaintiff 1 for each of 634,00 won, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for each of 1,00,000 won for the plaintiff 7, 8, 9, 10, 100 won for each of 1,00 won for the plaintiff 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 34, and 35 for each of the above money, and the interest rate of 30,000 won shall be 5% per annum from July 6, 197.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all plaintiffs through the first and second trials.

On February 15, 1971, 16:00, Plaintiff 1 had no dispute between the parties as to the facts of injury caused by the collision of 12 tons of 2930-63 metric tons belonging to the above military unit, which was driven by the Defendant’s subordinate organization in the case of Nonparty 1 of the military unit, which was driven by the Defendant’s subordinate organization in the direction of the Nandong-dong 1, Dong-dong, Seo-dong, Busan-dong, 1971.

Without dispute, Gap evidence 1-4 (each copy of the family register), Gap evidence 8 (Evidence Protocol), Gap evidence 9 (No. 1), and Gap evidence 5 (No. 9) which can be established by the testimony of the non-party 2, are also the witnesses of the above witness and the non-party 3. At the same time, the non-party 1 knew the above facts that the non-party 1's children were not able to be able to get the traffic of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1's 1's 1's 5's 6's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 6's 1's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''''s '''''''''''''''.

However, the defendant asserts that the claimant for compensation under Article 752 of the Civil Act is limited to the victim's lineal ascendant, lineal descendant and his spouse, and that the victim's lineal descendant's spouse does not have the right to claim compensation. Therefore, the plaintiff 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11's spouse (i.e., the plaintiff 1's spouse) is not the victim's right to claim compensation, but the defendant's provision of Article 752 of the Civil Act does not purport to recognize the claim for compensation for mental damage only to those who are in the relation of the victim's life or body because it harms another's life or body, and it is interpreted that it is nothing more than an example of the law on damage with the person who has the right to claim consolation money and the victim's legal interest as well as a person who has the relation of the victim's personal relationship with the victim. Thus, the above dispute is groundless, and the defendant's accident cannot be found to have been found if it is a large one of the accident at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs can be viewed as the contents of Gap evidence 6 (Statement of Treatment Expenses) which can be recognized by the testimony of the witness of the court below. If the testimony of the above witness is all made, the plaintiff 1 was hospitalized in the Neong Hospital on February 15, 1971 after suffering from the above accident and discharged on May 11 of the same year after suffering from the above accident, and the medical expenses of the above hospitalization period can be recognized as 434,000, respectively, and since there is no evidence that interfered with the above recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff 1 for the above money. The defendant is clearly in light of our rule of experience and social adjustment that the plaintiff 1 suffered from enormous mental pain due to the above accident of the plaintiff 1, the degree of injury, age (73 years old), circumstances of the plaintiff 1 on the one-day record, the remaining amount of damages to the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 100 won and the remaining amount of damages to the plaintiff 1, 2001 won and 50 won.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the above sum of KRW 534,00, the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 each amount of KRW 10,000, the remaining plaintiffs each amount of KRW 5,000, each of the above amounts of KRW 5,000, and each of the above amounts of KRW 5,000 on the record from July 6, 1971 to the time of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this case is justified within the above recognition and justified, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by changing the original judgment and applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to each of the above amounts.

Judges Choi Jin-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju