Relationship between benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act and compensation for losses caused by illegal acts;

Benefits paid under the Public Officials Pension Act are paid based on the social security system for public officials, and there is no direct relation to compensation for losses caused by illegal acts, and there is no reason for consideration in calculating consolation money, but it should not be deducted from the amount of losses.

Article 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap5739) in the first instance trial

(1) Of the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment, the defendant revoked the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay the plaintiff 2,200,000 won with an annual rate of 5% from July 1, 1971 to the full payment system, and the above plaintiff's claim as to that part is dismissed.

(2) The defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff 1 and each appeal against the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed.

(3) The costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be divided into five parts, one of which shall be the above plaintiff, the remaining part shall be the defendant, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 shall be the defendant's burden.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 100,00 per annum from July 1, 1971 to the full payment system. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 3,122,876, KRW 2,3, and KRW 50 per annum.

It is called that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant litigation performer has revoked the part against the defendant in the original judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on that part.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

(1) In full view of the purport of the testimony of Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 3, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 6, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 6, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 4, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, who was connected.

On the other hand, according to the facts acknowledged above, Plaintiff 1 was at night in the course of this construction work because he was in front of the train, and in particular, Nonparty 2 and Cho Jong-man were engaged in the work of connecting the above 1003 train construction with the 4 amount of a chemical to the 11th parallel of the above 1003 train construction work, so it is anticipated that when the above plaintiff was engaged in the operation of the connecting machine between the 1st line and the 11st parallel of the above 100 train construction work, it would be difficult for the plaintiff 1 to look back with the fire that was stopped by the 1st parallel of the late 1st to the 2nd parallel of the above 11st parallel of the above 11st parallel of the above 100 train construction work. Thus, the plaintiff was negligent in calculating the damages of the above 2nd parallel with the above 1st parallel of the plaintiff 1 to the 2nd parallel of the above 2nd parallel of the accident.

(2) Furthermore, as the above plaintiff's claim for damages amounting to 1, 2, 47 1, 2 and 12 were no dispute over the above plaintiff's 5-1, 200 won and 5-1, 200 won and 5-2 won were no longer than 6-1,000 won and 5-2 won were no longer than 5-1,000 won and no longer than 6-1,000 won and no longer than 6-1,000 won and no longer than 27 years old at the time of the accident, the above plaintiff can survive until 35.21,000 won and no longer than 6-1,000 won and no longer than 6-1,000 won and no dispute over the above 7-2-1,000 won and no longer than 9-2,000 won and no longer than 6-1,000 won and no longer than 5-1,000 won of the above monthly wage.

The above plaintiff cut off the right side of the plaintiff and could not work as early as early as early as possible, but instead could continue to work as early as early as possible, the difference of monthly salary compared to that of early as early as early as possible, but the plaintiff was merely a few thousand won, and the plaintiff retired from office without working as early as early as early as possible. Thus, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's claim for damages for the loss of this plaintiff's loss was unjustifiable. However, the above plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff cut off the right side of the plaintiff to cut off the entire right side and made the plaintiff unable to work as early as early as early as possible, and is allowed to work for new rural daily under the above physical conditions, unless there is any evidence that the plaintiff provided other conditions that the plaintiff could work for other types of occupations such as railroad wages guaranteed by the same remuneration other than early as above. The above argument is groundless.

(3) Next, according to the appraisal by Nonparty 5, the above plaintiff 1's claim was examined, and the above plaintiff 1's plaintiff 1's plaintiff 1's claim was found to have a fluoral fluor's fluoral fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluoral fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's f.

(4) Next, according to the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money against the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 2 is the plaintiff 1's wife, and the plaintiff 3 and 4 can be recognized the facts that they are their parents. Thus, the above plaintiffs 1' losses suffered from mental harm due to the plaintiff 1's losses can easily be seen under the experience law, so the defendant is obligated to do so. Thus, the defendant is obligated to do so. Thus, considering the above amount's health team, the facts recognized before the accident occurred, the plaintiff 1's negligence in the accident occurred, the fact that the plaintiff 1 was paid disability benefits pursuant to the Public Officials Pension Act, and all other circumstances shown in this case's argument after the plaintiff 1 suffered the injury, it is reasonable that the plaintiff 2, 3 and 4 receive consolation money from the plaintiff 1,50,000 won each (the plaintiff 1 did not appeal the consolation money claim at the court below but excluded from the party members' deliberation and judgment).

Since the defendant asserted that since the plaintiff 1 received compensation for disability under the Public Officials Pension Act after the accident of this case, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be deducted from the amount of damages or consolation money to be paid to other plaintiffs due to the plaintiff's loss loss. Thus, since the amount of benefits paid under the Public Officials Pension Act is paid based on the social security system for public officials, it constitutes the compensation for lost profit party or the payment of consolation money itself due to illegal acts. Therefore, the reasons for considering the amount of consolation money in calculating consolation money are not directly related to the claim of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

(5) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 2,20,00 won as damages and consolation money per loss profit, and the amount of 50,000 won per annum from July 1, 1971 to the full payment of each of the plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiff 2,3, and 4. Thus, each of the plaintiffs' claims is justified within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder is dismissed. Accordingly, the part against the defendant 1 among the original judgment ordering payment exceeding the above recognition is unfair, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed. The defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff 2,3, and 4 are dismissed, and each appeal against the plaintiff 2,3,000 won is without merit, and the defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff 1 and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2,3, and 4 are dismissed, and each appeal against the plaintiff 2,95,929, and 99,29, and 99, etc. are applied to each of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)