(a) Where a person who has received a retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act dies of a tort, whether to deduct a survivor's pension in calculating the amount of the lost retirement pension;

(b) Methods to deduct the amount of survivors' pension in cases of the above paragraph (a);

A. In cases where a person who received a retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act dies due to a tort committed by another person, if his/her bereaved family succeeds to the right to claim compensation for damages that he/she was unable to receive a retirement pension and at the same time he/she is to receive a survivor pension, the bereaved family members are concurrently entitled to receive the same benefits, and in calculating the amount of compensation to be paid to his/her heir, the amount of the

B. In the case of the above "A", where only a part of the inheritors are beneficiaries of the survivor pension under the Public Officials Pension Act, and the scope of the heir's right to claim damages equivalent to the lost retirement pension does not coincide with the scope of the beneficiary of the survivor pension, the heir shall jointly inherit the remainder after deducting the amount of the survivor pension from the amount of the lost retirement pension under the Civil Code

Article 763 (Article 393) of the Civil Act, Articles 56 and 57 of the Public Officials Pension Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Da21425 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1290) 92Da7269 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2556) (Gong1993Ha, 3154 delivered on October 22, 1993) B. Supreme Court Decision 68Da2178 delivered on February 4, 1969 (Gong177) 75Da1098 delivered on December 27, 197 (Gong1978, 1055) 86Da2581 delivered on June 9, 1987 (Gong1987, 1987, 1987)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Attorneys Choi Jong-soo et al.

Plaintiff 2 and one other

Jin Passenger Transport Corporation (Attorney Lee Gyeong-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 92Na2592 delivered on October 14, 1993

All appeals and supplementary appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 1.

1. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

According to the records, at the time of the accident in this case, the deceased non-party 1, who operated the Busan Metropolitan City Empic Group at the time of the accident, can work as a member of the Empic Group until he reaches the age of 61, who is the retirement age of the Empic Group. At the same time, the judgment of the court below which held that the non-party 1, who operated the Empic teaching school at the time of the accident in this case, can obtain monthly income of 240,000 won as an extracurricular for the same period, is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the retirement age of the Empic group or the period of operation as an extracurricular instructor. There is

2. We examine the grounds of supplementary appeal by Plaintiff 1 (including the grounds of supplementary appeal on the grounds of supplementary appeal).

(1) On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, we find that the court below recognized that the plaintiff 1, who is the driver of the victim vehicle of this case, was negligent as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law as to the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

(2) On the second and third grounds for appeal

According to the records, the plaintiffs have led to the confession that 1/3 of the net non-party 2's income will take into account living expenses on the date of the first instance court's pleading, and again cancelled it on the date of the first instance court's pleading. Accordingly, the court below held that the above confession has no validity since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the confession was contrary to the truth, or based on mistake, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to confession and cancellation of the right to make a statement, the exercise of the right to make a statement, and the incomplete hearing, etc., as it is obvious that the tuition fee was 136,000 won per month or 160,000 won per month, and it is evident that the 1/3 of the total income including the retirement pension is not able to live in living expenses.

If the deceased non-party 2, who retired from office and received a retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act, was a part-time lecturer for the next two years from the date of accident in addition to the retirement pension, and was able to obtain monthly income of KRW 136,00 or KRW 160,000,00, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of the retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act and the cost of living in calculating the amount of the daily retirement pension and the tuition fees required by the plaintiffs, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature of the retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act and the cost of living. In any case, the theory that the cost of living shall not be deducted is nothing more than an independent opinion.

All arguments are without merit.

(3) On the fourth ground for appeal

If a person who has received a retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act succeeds to the right to claim compensation for damages arising from the deceased's failure to receive the retirement pension and received the survivor's pension at the same time, his bereaved family members are entitled to receive the survivor's benefits. Therefore, in calculating the amount of compensation to be paid to his heir, the amount of the survivor's pension should be deducted from the amount of the employee's retirement pension (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da29372 delivered on October 22, 1993). In this case, the amount of the survivor's pension to be deducted shall be equivalent to 70/100 of the amount of the retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act. Meanwhile, even if the deceased's heir's death does not coincide with the scope of the deceased's right to claim compensation for damages arising from the deceased's actual retirement pension under the Public Officials Pension Act, the above deceased's heir's claim for compensation for damages after deducting the amount of the survivor's retirement pension from the amount of the deceased's actual retirement pension under the Civil Act.

(4) As to the fifth and sixth points

Even though Plaintiff 1 is the deceased Nonparty 2’s husband at the same time as the deceased Nonparty 2’s children, in calculating the amount of consolation money against Plaintiff 1, the court below calculated the amount of consolation money without calculating the amount of consolation money for each deceased’s death, and it cannot be said that there was an error in the misapprehension of reasoning. In addition, in calculating consolation money for the deceased Nonparty 2 and the deceased Nonparty 1, considering all the circumstances indicated in the record, the court below recognized the same amount as the same amount in calculating consolation money for the deceased Nonparty 2 and the deceased Nonparty 1, and it does not necessarily violate the rule of experience or logic. All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal and the incidental appeal by the plaintiff 1 are all dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant-Appellant and the incidental appeal by the plaintiff 1, who is the incidental appellant, respectively. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)