The responsibility of the driver of the Otoba in the case of death of the victim, who was protruding down on the Otoba which was followed by the Otoba, again by the Otoba.

In the case of the death of the victim who was getting on a stopheral vehicle, which was stophered on the stopher and passed beyond the road, it is evident that the victim's direct cause for the death of the victim is the shock of the truck. However, even as a driver of an stopa, it was possible to predict that the vehicle might cause the death of the victim by shocking the vehicle again if the vehicle exceeds the stopher on the road where many vehicles are shocked at night. Therefore, the stop driver's negligence is concurrent with the negligence of the truck driver, and it should be considered that there was a common cause for the death of the victim.

Article 760 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da91 Decided March 26, 1968 (Law No. 760(15)1305 of the Civil Act, Article 760(15)16(1)192)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

Jeonju District Court of First Instance (88 Gohap881) Gunsan Branch Court of the District Court of First Instance

1. Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment ordering Plaintiff 1 to pay the Defendant amounting to KRW 2,620,59, KRW 2,3,4,59, KRW 1,000 per annum from December 5, 1987 to March 24, 1989, and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the part ordering the Defendant to pay the Defendant amounting to KRW 2,50,000 per annum, and all of the Plaintiffs’ claims for revocation are dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are all dismissed.

3. All the first and second instances of litigation are divided into four parts, and one of them is the defendant, and the other is the defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 8,385,600 won, 5,885,600 won, 5,600 won to the plaintiff 3,4, and 5,590 won, 4,400 won respectively, 1,647,600 won to the plaintiff 1, and the amount of 1,647,600 won and each of the above amounts from December 5, 1987 to the date of the original judgment, 5% per annum, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be revoked and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

On December 5, 1987, 18:30, the deceased non-party 1 was unable to use the above 6-mentioned 6 driver's license to open the above 6-mentioned 6 driver's license and to open the 6-round 6-round 6-round 5-round 6-round 6-round 5-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-round 6-day.

According to the above facts, it is evident that the truck driven by the co-defendant of the court below is shocking the deceased. However, this is because the defendant's Otoba first shocked over the deceased, and even though it can be predicted that if the vehicle passed over the road on which the passage of the vehicle was high at night, the shock by the defendant's negligence would lead to the death of the deceased again. Thus, the shock by the defendant's negligence would coincide with the negligence of the co-defendant of the court below and became a common cause for the death of the above deceased. Thus, the defendant is liable for compensation for the damages suffered by the above deceased and the plaintiffs due to the death of the deceased as joint tortfeasor.

Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, when the above deceased gets a bicycle on a roadway at night, he can find the fact that the above deceased was involved in the accident of this case while driving on a bicycle riding along the roadway with a light plate, etc. on the back side of the bicycle so that it can be confirmed after the bicycle can be confirmed by the following, and driving on the bicycle riding along the roadway without a light light board, etc. on the side of the roadway at night. However, such negligence of the above deceased is in concurrence with the above negligence of the defendant and the co-defendant of the court below and caused the damage of this case. However, the degree of exemption of the defendant's liability for damages is not sufficient to consider it in calculating the damages of the defendant, but it is reasonable to 20 percent in total in light of the above negligence.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

If Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and Nos. 4-1, 1, 2-1, 7-1, and 1, 2-1, and 5-1 of the evidence Nos. 7 (pre-use sign and content) as mentioned above are collected, the deceased non-party 1 was born on February 12, 193, and the average male life of 54 years old is 16.9 years old at the time of the accident, and the wages of adult male working for rural daily work around December 1987, as at the time of the above accident, are 11,160 won per day, and there is no counter-proof evidence that the wages of those working for rural daily work were less than 20 days per day before the above 20-day death (the above 15-day death of those working for rural daily work is less than 60 days). Thus, it is obvious that the plaintiffs' damages were less than 15-day, and there is no evidence that the above 10-day death was less than 60 days after the above 10-day.

(b) Funeral expenses.

The fact that Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 1,00,000 as funeral expenses of Nonparty 1 due to the instant accident is not a dispute between the parties.

(c) Set-off of negligence;

Therefore, since the property damage of Nonparty 1 caused by the instant accident was at least KRW 2,525,749, and the property damage of Plaintiff 1 was at least KRW 1,00,000,00, or even to the above deceased, the above deceased was at fault, taking this into account, the property damage of the above deceased was at least KRW 2,020,59 ( KRW 2,525,749x80/100), and the above Plaintiff’s property damage was at least KRW 8,00,00 ( KRW 1,00,000x80/100).

(d) Condolence money;

In light of the empirical rule that the deceased non-party 1 died due to the accident in this case, and the plaintiffs, who are not the deceased and their family members, suffered a considerable amount of mental pain, the defendant is obligated to do so. Thus, in consideration of various circumstances such as the deceased and the plaintiffs' age, family relations, property and environment as shown in the argument in this case, and the background and result of the accident in this case, it is reasonable for the defendant to pay as consolation money 2,500,000 won to the deceased non-party 1, 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 1,00,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs.

(e) Credit on the amount of damages repaid;

Meanwhile, there is no dispute between the parties that the co-defendants of the court below paid the plaintiff 1 the aggregate amount of KRW 4,700,000 on two occasions as the damages in this case. It is reasonable to view that this was paid as part of the lost non-party 1's damages and the property damages of the plaintiff 1, and to that extent, the defendant's obligation to compensate for damages was extinguished. Accordingly, if each of the above damages is deducted in sequence from each of the above damages, the defendant's damages amount of KRW 4,520,59 ( KRW 2,020,599 + KRW 2,599 + KRW 2,50,500) did not remain, but the damages amount of the plaintiff 1 remains 620,599 [ KRW 800,00 ( KRW 4,700,000- KRW 4,520,599)].

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 2,620,59 won (620,599 won + 2,000,000 won), 1,000 won each of the above amounts to the remaining plaintiffs, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 5, 1987 to March 24, 1989, which is the date of the accident of this case (it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's duty of performance until then) from March 24, 1989, and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the date following the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is accepted within the above recognized scope and the remaining claims are dismissed for the reasons. Since the court below's part of the defendant's appeal is accepted differently, the defendant's claim for damages against the defendant is revoked, and all of the defendant's remaining claims against the defendant are dismissed by applying Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge)