In the event that the taxi driver's number of taxi drivers kills the passenger, whether the user is liable to compensate for such death.

In a case where a passenger kills his/her passengers for the purpose of hiding his/her money and goods after taking the above passenger's cab driving and taking his/her money and goods into force, because it was impossible for the passenger to walk up his/her vehicle as soon as he/she did not immediately own land, and caused violence to the taxi driver, the user is liable as an employer for damages caused by the death of the above passenger, who is his/her employee, as a result of a mutual conflict between the place of driving and the place of driving that are closely related to the above driving during the operation of the vehicle.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Hansung Transportation Limited Partnership

Suwon District Court Branch of Sungwon District Court (82 Gohap56)

In the disposition of the original judgment, the part against the defendant who ordered payment to the plaintiff 1 in excess of the amount of KRW 3,151,601, KRW 3,401, KRW 57,734 and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 2,267, and KRW 5% per annum from January 23, 1981 to September 3, 1982, and KRW 25% per annum from September 4, 1982 to full payment, shall be revoked, and the part against the defendant who ordered payment to the plaintiff 2 in excess of the amount of KRW 3,151,601, KRW 3,401, KRW 4,55, and KRW 6, and each of the above amounts shall be dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit shall be four minutes, and three others shall be borne by the defendant and the rest by the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount equivalent to 5,419,347 won, 3, 4, 5, and 6 each of the above amounts, 3,446,232 won, and 5 percent per annum from January 23, 1981 to the service date of the part soar, and 25 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment.

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

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed.

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

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증(제적등본), 갑 제3호증(호적등본), 갑 제8호증의 1, 2, 3(각 판결등본)의 각 기재와 당원의 형사기록검증 결과에 변론의 전취지를 보태어 보면, 피고회사 소속 (차량번호 생략)호 영업용 택시운전수인 소외 1은 1981. 1. 21. 23:30경 경기 성남시 성남동 소재 성호시장 앞길에서 망 소외 2를 위 택시운전석 옆좌석에 태우고 그 요구에 따라서 경기도 광주방면을 향하여 운행중 경춘산업도로 입구부근에 있는 터널앞까지 이르자 위 피해자가 술이 만취된 상태에서 횡설수설하면서 자기의 목적지는 이길로 가면 안된다고 하여 다시 원래 동인이 승차하였던 곳으로 돌아와 동인에게 하차할 것을 요구하였으나 이제 방향을 정확히 알려 주겠으니 태워달라고 하여 다시 차량을 운행, 경기 성남시 분당동 소재 태재고개에 까지 이르렀던 바, 동인이 다시 “지금 어디로 가는 것이냐, 가는 길이 틀리다”고 하면서 욕설을 하므로 이에 항의하며 다시 오던 길로 차를 돌리자 동인이 “내 아들이 국보위에 있는데 너를 삼청교육에 보내 정신차리게 해주겠다. 내가 당수가 5단인데 맛좀 보라”고 하면서 주먹으로 소외 1의 오른쪽 귀밑과 어깨부위를 때리므로 화가나서 차를 세우고 오른손으로 동인의 멱살을 잡고 흔드는등 하다가 차에서 내려 동인이 앉아 있는 그 차우측 문쪽으로 와서 문을 열고 동인의 옷깃을 잡아 끌어 내는 도중 동인이 끌려 나오지 않으려고 버티다가 머리로 받으려는 자세를 취하면서 끌려 나오므로 이를 피하려다가 차도옆 약 3미터 되는 비탈길로 내려가고, 이에 다시 올라와 차밖에 쓰러져 있는 동인의 오른쪽 머리부분을 왼발로 1회 세게 찼는데 동인이 소외 1의 다리를 붙잡고 늘어져 다시 위 비탈길로 함께 미끄러져 내려간 후 발로 동인의 안면을 2회 세게 차서 동인을 눈이 쌓여 있는 그곳 땅바닥에 쓰러뜨렸는데 이때 위와 같은 폭행으로 얼굴이 눈구덩이에 파묻힌 채 신음하고 있던 동인의 젖혀진 외투 안쪽 호주머니에서 거기에 들어있던 돈지갑끝이 보이자 이를 강취할 것을 결의하고 우측 옆으로 넘어진 채로 일어나지 못하고 계속 신음하면서도 위 지갑을 빼앗기지 않으려고 반항을 하는 동인을 억눌러 그 반항을 억압하고 동인의 지갑을 강취한 다음 범행을 은폐할 목적으로 피해자가 매고 있던 넥타이로 목을 조여 살해한 사실, 원고 1은 위 망인의 처, 원고 2는 호주상속하는 위 망인의 장남, 나머지 원고들은 위 망인의 아들들인 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 원심증인 엄택중의 일부 증언은 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증이 없다.

If so, the deceased non-party 2's death was caused by the mutual consultation between the place and the direction of operation, which is recognized as closely related to the above movement during the operation of the motor vehicle by the non-party 1, who is an employee of the defendant, and the result was low by the non-party 1. Thus, the defendant is the non-party 1's employer, and is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the death

However, according to the above facts of recognition, although non-party 2 is required to clearly state his/her behavior and cooperate with the safe operation, he/she does not immediately own the place of his/her behavior while drinking, and leads the cab to the non-party 1 who follows it, which caused violence to the non-party 1, which caused the illegal act of this case. Thus, such behavior of the deceased also caused the illegal act of this case. However, it is determined that this does not constitute the degree of exemption from the defendant's liability for damages, and thus, it should be considered in determining the amount of damages by the defendant.

2. Scope of damages.

(1) Gross profit

If Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Business Registration Certificate), Gap evidence Nos. 7 (Business Registration Certificate), and Gap evidence Nos. 9-1 and 2 (Business Registration Certificate Certificate) are presumed to be genuine, and the purport of the oral argument is changed to some testimonys (excluding the portion not trusted in the above) of the witness of the court below, the deceased non-party Nos. 2 is a healthy male who was under the age of 49 and Oct. 15, 1931 at the time of the present accident and was under the trade name called (trade name omitted) rice at the time of the present accident and was under the age of 6 months near the date of the present accident, and the above rice cannot be acknowledged as being under the age of 60, and there is no dispute between the deceased's 1,171,272 and the above parties for living expenses, and there is no difference between the two parties.

Therefore, in the absence of the accident of this case, for 133 months from the time of the accident, the deceased non-party 2 continued to operate rice 195,212 won (1,171,272 ±6) each month while operating rice ever before the end of 60 years from the time of the accident. However, as the accident of this case, the deceased non-party 2 suffered losses each month after deducting the living expenses from the above profits, 130,141 won (1,212 won x 2/3: hereinafter the same shall apply) after deducting the living expenses from the above profits from the accident of this case, 130,141 won (the amount below 195,212 won x 2/3: hereinafter the same shall apply). Since the plaintiffs sought a lump sum payment of the above lost profits as of the time of the accident of this case, it is clear that the deceased non-party 2 calculated the above losses by deducting the intermediate interest rate of 12 minutes per month 504,13750

However, as recognized earlier, since the above deceased was negligent in causing a tort, it is reasonable that the defendant reduced the lost profits of the above deceased to 12,374,140 won (13,749,045 won x 90/100) to compensate for damages. The right to claim damages was jointly inherited to the plaintiff 1 and 2 at the rate of 2,651,601 won (12,374,140 won x 3/140 won x 3/140), the plaintiffs 3,4,5, and 6 respectively to the plaintiff 1,67,734 won (12,374,140 won x 2/140 won) in proportion to their respective statutory inheritances.

(2) Consolation money

It can be easily recognized in light of the empirical rule that the deceased non-party 2 suffered severe mental pain due to the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to do so. In light of the circumstance and result of the accident of this case as seen above, the age of the plaintiffs as shown in the argument of this case, and all other circumstances such as the status relationship with the deceased, it is reasonable to pay the remaining plaintiffs of 1,00,000 won per 50,000 won to each of them as consolation money.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant shall dismiss the plaintiff 1 with 3,651,601 won (2,651,601 won + 1,600,000 won with above data) and 3,151,601 won (2,651,601 won with above data + 500,000 won with above data) with above 3,151,601 won, 3,4,55, and 6 respectively with above 2,267,734 won (1,7,740,000 won with above property damages + 1,767,7340,500 won with above property damages) and the defendant's claim for damages for delay from January 23, 1981 to September 3, 1982 with above 9% of the total amount of damages for delay as stated in the judgment of the court below to be dismissed, and there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages for delay within the extent of 9% per annum of the above 95% per annum of the above.

Judge Lee Han-gu (Presiding Judge)