Measures to be taken by a driver where the wheels of the city bus falls into the street with which it was sobed.

In the event that there is a danger that a bus may fall in order to pass through due to the congestion of the road, a driver is obliged to prevent human life damage that may occur due to a full-time reproduction of the bus by setting up the bus and driving it on the street with the wheels, if the bus has been in a state of being fluored due to the malfunction of the road.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (69A6810) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da6810)

The part against the defendant who ordered the plaintiff 1 to pay 293,327 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from April 23, 1969 to the full payment date, among the original judgment, shall be revoked and the above plaintiff's request for the part shall be dismissed.

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the remaining appeal against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed.

Among the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant is divided into four parts, and one shall be borne by the above plaintiff, the remaining part shall be borne by the defendant, and the costs of appeal arising between the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiffs pay to the plaintiffs 1 5.1,547 won, and to the plaintiffs 2, 3, 4, and 5 an annual interest rate of 30,00 won and the annual interest rate of 5% from April 23, 1969 to the full payment date.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant-appellant shall revoke the part against the defendant among the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

(i)the occurrence of liability for damages;

In light of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 5 through 7 of the court below's testimony and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the non-party 1's testimony and non-party 1's whole purport are combined. At around 20:0, 1969, the non-party 2, who is the defendant, had 60 passengers of the above 1's 60 wheel-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. The defendant neglected to perform the duty of care of the plaintiff's 506 wheel-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. This is a place where there is a risk of harming the plaintiff's 506 wheel-dong, so long as there is no other reason to believe that the plaintiff's wheel-dong can cause damages to the right side of the road, and thus, even if there is no other reason to believe that the wheel-gu wheel-dong's wheel-gu passenger's wheel-si's wheel-si's wheel-gu damages caused by the plaintiff's wheel-gu.

(2) Scope of damages

(A) import damage resulting from

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 1-1-4 of the same evidence Nos. 8 and 4-1-6 of the court below's 8-1-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-7-7-7-77-7-7-77-77-77-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-

(B) Future medical expenses of Plaintiff 1

According to the appraisal statement of the appraiser non-party 3 from the above time, the physical treatment shall be conducted for about one month in order to treat the post-treatment caused by this accident, and the expenses may be recognized as requiring 400 won per day, and there is no counter-proof otherwise, so the defendant is obligated to pay 12,000 won (40 x 300) as a future treatment fee to the plaintiff 1.

(c)comforcing materials;

According to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff 2 is the wife of the plaintiff 1 who is the victim of this case, and the facts that the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 were their children are recognized. Thus, it can be easily known that the plaintiffs suffered mental pain due to the accident of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay them in money. In light of the various circumstances shown in the records, such as the plaintiffs' age, academic background, living level, and degree of negligence on the part of the defendant, it is reasonable to pay 20,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 10,000 won to the plaintiff 3, 4, and 5 (the plaintiff 1 did not claim consolation money in this case).

(3) Consultations

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 a solatium of 293,327 won and consolation money of 20,000 won and consolation money of 3,4,500 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from April 23, 1969 to the full payment date, which is the day following the day after the accident occurred with respect to each of the above money. Thus, the plaintiff 1's claim of this case is reasonable within the above recognized limit and it is reasonable to accept it and dismiss the remainder of the claim. The original judgment of the plaintiff 1, which has different conclusions, is reasonable within the above limit, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable. The defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff and appeal against the other plaintiffs are without merit. Thus, the defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff 1 and the remaining appeal against the plaintiff are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the Civil Procedure Act, 96, 95, 89, and 92.

Judges Go Youngk (Presiding Judge)