206 Doz. 11320 Damages (i.e., losses)

1. 00

2. 00

3. 00

4. 00

1. 00 :

2. Korea;

November 3, 2006

November 17, 2006

1. The Defendants shall pay 27,462,948 won to each of the plaintiffs 000, 00, 000, and 17,375,298 won with 5% per annum from July 6, 2003 to November 17, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 of the costs of lawsuit are borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant of the Gu office will pay 000 won to each of the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 2003, the non-party 00 driven a knife at around 20:35,000, while driving along one lane, the non-party 00 died at the site of the accident where the protection wall installed on the above road is facing the front part of the above vehicle's left part, while driving a knife at around 00:00,000 and driving along one lane. (hereinafter referred to as "accident").

B. The road where the accident of this case occurred (hereinafter referred to as the "road of this case") leads to two-lanes of roads from each side of the two roads, each of which is 00 Do and 4 Do respectively, and is divided into two new roads due to the protective walls installed at each side of each road, and the part where the road is set up at 00 Do. The road of this case is managed by the road management agency under the Road Act. The above road is only 00 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 - 3 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 - 3 0 0 - - 1 - 3 0 0 - from each of the military installations under the Protection of Military Installations Act.

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

(a) Occurrence of liability;

According to the above facts, it is difficult to predict that the defense wall of this case is not easily recognizable into the ground at night, and in light of its structure and weight, it may cause serious danger to a vehicle collision. Although the protection wall of this case is located above the safety zone of the road, it is ordinarily located at the point where the road is set up, but it is usually located at a relatively limited point, such as the road of this case, if the driver of this case passes away from the road of this case, there are frequent cases in which the driver of this case is driving the road of this case, the defendant Republic of Korea, who installed and manages the protection wall of this case, was able to predict to a certain extent that the driver of this case would suffer serious damage by receiving the protection wall installed on the road of this case, and therefore, in order to prevent this accident, the plaintiffs should have been informed that dangerous facilities such as the protection wall of this case, such as the protection wall of this case, are installed on the road of this case, and thus, the plaintiffs should have been responsible for damages to each accident of this case.

B. Limitation on liability

However, as shown in the above facts, the defense wall of this case was a military installation installed in accordance with the military facility related regulations, such as the Protection of Military Installations Act, and the above 000 was negligent in the accident of this case in the above 000, as the vehicle, which was driven by it, was installed on the road by getting out of the lane and the accident of this case occurred, without neglecting its duty of care to drive without getting out of the lane while driving it, as seen in the above facts of recognition. Such negligence also resulted in the occurrence and expansion of the accident of this case, and thus, it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendants, and in light of the above facts, the defendants' responsibility for the accident of this case is limited to 30%.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

(1) Gender, date of birth, and age;

The above 00 is a male who was born on August 25, 1972 and was born on August 25, 1972, and the age of the accident was October 11, 31, and the life expectancy was 45.03.

(2) Monetary assessment of capability to operate: The plaintiffs claimed that the above 00 insurance solicitors should include KRW 2,293,854 per month from the above 00 in addition to the above income. Thus, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as stated in the evidence No. 5-1 and No. 5-2, it is insufficient to recognize that the above 00 had served as an insurance solicitor from April 24, 2002 to the life insurance company as an insurance solicitor, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above 52,483 won (the urban daily wage sought by the plaintiff) should be included in the basis for the calculation of actual income. Accordingly, according to the purport of each of the statements and arguments as stated in the evidence No. 4-1 to No. 4, No. 9-8-10, No. 7, and No. 8-7, and No. 8, the above plaintiffs' assertion that the above 00 had not been recognized as an insurance solicitor from around 3000,000.

(3) Maximum working age: 60 years of age, 349 months;

(d) Cost of living: 1/3 of income;

(5) Calculation: daily 52,483 x 22 x x 22 x 22 x 215.1729 (Fmanmanium) = 165,629,483(b) funeral expenses.

Amount of expenditure: 3,000,000 won

The expenditure officer: Plaintiff 00,900,000 won (gold KRW 3,000,000) and the recognition ratio after offsetting the negligence (30% after offsetting the negligence).

(a) Ratio: 70 percent;

(2) Damages of the deceased after offsetting negligence: 49,688,844 won (=165,629,483 x30%).

(1) Reasons: The deceased and the plaintiffs' age, family relations, property and level of education, occupation, circumstances of accidents, the injured party's negligence, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments in this case.

(2) The amount of decision

Deceased: 15,000,000 won

Plaintiff 000: 5,000,000

Plaintiff 00, 000, 000: each of 3,000,000 won

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 8-2 of evidence No. 6, rule of experience, purport of whole pleadings]

(1) Amount to be inherited: 64,688,844 won (=property damage of 49,688,844 won + 15,000,000 won) (2) Inheritance portion and inheritance amount;

Plaintiff 1/3: 21,562,948 won (=64,68,844 won x1/3) Plaintiff 00,000, and 00: 2/9 respectively: 14,375,298 won (=64,688,84 won x2/9) 3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are co-offenders of 27,462,948 won in inheritance + KRW 21,562,948 in inheritance + KRW 900,00 in property damage + KRW 5,000,000 in property damage + KRW 17,375,298 in each of them to the plaintiffs 00,000, KRW 17,375,000 in inheritance + KRW 3,000 in total + KRW 3,000 in 3,00,000 in each of the above money as co-offenders of this case and each of the above money was each of the above money from July 6, 2003 to November 17, 206, the date of this judgment, which is 14,375,298 in inheritance + KRW 3,000 in each of the above money. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed within each of the above reasons for citing each of the above plaintiffs' claims.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Park Jae-in

Judges Yellow Min-young