[1] Whether the amount of damages can be reduced solely based on the facts of a show of winning (negative)

[2] Whether a driver has a duty to urge the driver to drive safely solely on the basis of the fact of free driving (negative)

[3] The case holding that the number of monthly working days of workers engaged in rural daily work shall be presumed 25 days under the rules of experience

[1] Where an operator of a vehicle permits the boarding of the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passengers without receiving any consideration, and the passenger receives such a provision for his/her convenience and interest, if it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passengers and the operators, the circumstances leading up to his/her being accompanied by the vehicle, and the purpose and active nature of the demand for the boarding of the vehicle, the amount of compensation may be reduced if it is deemed reasonable in view of the principle of good faith or equity. However, the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident merely took the seat of the vehicle, but it does not constitute a cause for mitigation of the amount of compensation.

[2] Even if a driver was accompanied by a vehicle without compensation, such fact alone cannot be said to have a duty of care to urge the driver to ensure safe operation.

[3] The case holding that the number of monthly working days, which served as the basis for calculating the lost income of a person engaged in daily work in agricultural communities without any special function, shall be presumed 25 days under the rules of experience

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 396 and 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 393, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da32917 delivered on Nov. 25, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 94), Supreme Court Decision 95Da24302 delivered on Mar. 22, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1345), Supreme Court Decision 97Da3534 delivered on Nov. 14, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3842) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da665 delivered on Apr. 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1482), Supreme Court Decision 91Da4093 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1992), Supreme Court Decision 97Da35394 delivered on Nov. 36, 1994 (Gong1963Da196394 delivered on Sept. 36, 1994)

Yoon Dong-dong et al. (Attorneys Yellow-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

El District Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Samsung, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na15172 delivered on September 24, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

In a case where an operator of a vehicle permits the riding of the vehicle for the convenience and interest of passengers without any consideration, and the passenger receives the provision for his own convenience and interest, taking into account various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator, the circumstances leading up to his participation in the vehicle, and the purpose and active nature of the demand for the riding, if deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith and equity, the amount of compensation may be reduced, but only the fact that the vehicle was merely accompanied by the vehicle involved in the accident, the amount of compensation may not be considered as a reason to reduce the amount of compensation. Although the vehicle was occupied without compensation, it cannot be said that the driver has a duty of care to urge the safe operation of the vehicle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da4093, May 12, 1992; 94Da32917, Nov. 25, 1994; 200Da3294, Mar. 24, 1996).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 was killed of all passengers including the above two persons on the train which passed the above two vehicles when the non-party 1 went through the railroad crossing by disregarding that the non-party 1 shared the operating profit of the above vehicle, driving the her mother, driving the her driver with the warning and warning, etc. to inform the above non-party 1's entry into the train. At the time of the accident, the above lele citizen was a friendship-gu with the above non-party 1's mother, who is the above non-party 1's mother. Thus, the above lele citizen shared the operation profit of the above vehicle, and the above lele citizen was involved in the above vehicle with the above non-party 1's accident without urging the above non-party 1's safe driving due to negligence, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant's above lele driver's above son's duty of care is not legitimate in light of the above legal principles and the records.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the residence of the above leap citizen was a rural community and the plaintiff leapdong, his father, owned or leased farmland and engaged in agriculture. The court below held that if the above leap citizen had not been involved in the accident, he would have been engaged in work for the daily work in rural communities at least after completing military service as the majority of the above leap citizen was the majority. In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal, such as misunderstanding of facts and

In addition, the number of monthly working days, which serve as the basis for calculating the actual income of a person engaged in daily work in agricultural communities without any special function, are presumed to be 25 days under the experience law (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da4774, Jul. 10, 1998). Therefore, the grounds of appeal disputing this point are without merit.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)