[1] The case holding that the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Revised Warsaw Convention)" shall apply to the liability for damages caused by the fall of the aircraft of the Chinese International Air Corporation which occurred in the vicinity of the Kimhae Airport in 2002

[2] The case holding that Article 22 (1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Revised Warsaw Convention) does not apply to the limitation of liability of air carriers on the ground that the act of aircraft captain, etc. at the time was committed with the awareness that damage would probably occur, in the fall accident of the aircraft near the Kimhae Airport in 2002

[1] The case holding that the "Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Air Transport (Revised Warsaw Convention)" shall apply to the liability for damages caused by the fall of the aircraft of the Chinese International Air Corporation occurring near the Kimhae Airport in 2002

[2] The case holding that Article 22 (1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Revised Warsaw Convention) does not apply to air carriers' limitation of liability on the ground that the aircraft crash accident occurred near the Kimhae Airport in 2002 and the act of aircraft captain at the time was committed with the awareness that the aircraft captain, etc. at the time would cause a fluence and damage.

[1] Article 1 (2) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Revised Warsaw Convention) / [2] Articles 22 (1) and 25 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air (Revised Warsaw Convention)

Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Dong-dong International Law, Attorneys Seo Dong-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

China International Aviation Corporation (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Jeong Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 2, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 1 13,192,38 won per annum from April 15, 2002 to June 23, 2006 to the plaintiff 2,3, and 4 133,192,38 won, and 232,789,260 won per annum to the plaintiff 6, and 72,692,840 won per annum to the plaintiff 6, and 72,048,241 won per annum to the plaintiff 8, and 41,032,161 won per annum from April 15, 2002 to June 23, 2006 to the plaintiff 6, and 20% per annum to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 60% is assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 301,826,118 won, 471,823,813,792 won to the plaintiff 5, and 314,542,52,529 won, and 201,786,482 won to the plaintiff 8, and 134,524,321 won from April 15, 2002 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the application for extension of claim of this case, and 6% amount per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a legal entity of the People's Republic of China, which has a place of business in the Republic of Korea, air carrier of Boan 767-200 Aircraft Nos. 129 (hereinafter "the aircraft of this case"), and the deceased non-party Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter "the deceased of this case") entered into an air transport contract with the defendant to the Republic of China where its departure and departure is Vietnam of the People's Republic of China, and the person boarding the aircraft of this case.

B. On April 15, 2002, the aircraft of this case started Vietnam of 08:40, and attempted to land at the port of the Republic of Korea Kimhae on the same day at around 11:23 of the same day. On the top of the aircraft, in the case where the runway of the wind is flying with a high intensity of the wind, the aircraft shall immediately stop the flight unless the runway seems to be the ground, and the altitude is high. However, even though the aircraft continued to fly continuously, the aircraft fell from 4.6 km away from the 18R end of the runway of the runway to the Kimhae Airport of Kimhae-si located in the northwest-si, Kim-do (hereinafter “the accident of this case”).

C. All the deceased were killed due to the instant accident. Plaintiff 1’s wife, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3 were the deceased Nonparty 1’s children, and Plaintiff 5 was the deceased Nonparty 2’s wife, Plaintiff 6, and Plaintiff 7 were the deceased Nonparty 2’s children, and Plaintiff 8 inherited the deceased’s property as the deceased’s wife, Plaintiff 9, 10, and 11 were the deceased’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) the applicable law;

(1) The instant accident occurred within the territory of the Republic of Korea is a claim for damages due to nonperformance or tort under the Aviation Passenger Transport Contract, and is governed by the laws of the Republic of Korea under Article 32 of the Private International Act.

(2) Meanwhile, on January 28, 1967, the Republic of Korea subscribed to the Protocol for the Amendment of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air signed at Warsaw on October 12, 1929 (hereinafter “the Warsaw Convention”) (hereinafter “the Hague Protocol”) and promulgated it on October 11, 1967 under the Treaty No. 2599 of the Hague Treaty. Accordingly, the Warsaw Convention became effective as it was amended by the Hague Protocol (hereinafter “the Warsaw Convention”), and as regards legal relations pertaining to international carriage by air, it has the status of preferentially applying the Civil Act as a special law as a general law (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1372, Jul. 22, 1986).

The People's Republic of China also became a contracting party to the Hague Protocol without joining the Warsaw Convention.

According to Article 1(2) of the Hague Protocol, the term "international carriage by air" means carriage in the territory of two Contracting States or in the territory of a single Contracting State when there is a port of call in the territory of another Contracting State even if the place of departure and arrival are within the territory of a single Contracting State, and the term "Contracting State" here includes a country in which the said Convention has been entered into as a member of the Warsaw Convention, as in Korea and the People's Republic of China.

Thus, since the deceased and the defendant concluded an air transport contract with the People's Republic of China to the point of departure from the Republic of China, the amended Warsaw Convention applies in relation to the liability for damages caused by the accident in this case.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

According to the above facts, in the case of this case where there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the defendant himself and his employees or agents, a carrier under the air transport contract of this case, took all necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident of this case, or could not take such measures, the defendant is liable for compensation under the terms of and restrictions on the Warsaw Convention, which amended the Warsaw Convention as to the damage suffered by the deceased who died of the accident of this case and the plaintiffs in their family relations as seen above, while on board the aircraft of this case due to the nonperformance of obligation under the above transport contract of

3. Whether liability for damages is limited.

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that Article 22 (1) of the Warsaw Convention (the amended Warsaw Convention) provides that the amount of liability of the carrier for each passenger in the carriage of passengers shall be limited to the amount of the 250,000 French Alley (hereinafter referred to as "franc") and limits the liability of the air carrier. Thus, the defendant's liability should be limited to the amount of the above limitation of liability.

In this regard, the plaintiffs asserted that since the accident of this case occurred due to the act or omission of done Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dogg Dog Dogg Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dogg Dogg Dogg Dogg Doggg Doggg Doggg Doggggg Dogggg Dogg Dogg., it is excluded from the application of the

B. Relevant provisions

(1) Article 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention amended

In the carriage of passengers, the liability of a carrier for each passenger shall not exceed the amount of 250,00 Francs. When it is possible to determine the method of periodic payment of damages in accordance with the laws of the country in which the lawsuit is pending, the original amount of a regular payment shall not exceed 250,000 Francs: Provided, That the limit of liability for passengers may be set by a special agreement with a carrier.

(2) Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention amended.

The provisions of Article 22 shall not apply to the extent that it is proved that damage was caused by the act or omission of done kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar kar k

Thus, we will examine the specific circumstances of the accident in order to determine whether the accident of this case was caused by the act committed with the awareness that the defendant's employees or agents would be harming, with the intention of harming the defendant's employees or agents, or with the awareness that the damage would occur.

(1) Procedures for vessel access intended by the captain of the instant aircraft

The procedure of the instant aircraft captain’s intention was to check the runway from the final access of 36L of the runway to the land, and then to enter the course of 20 seconds, which is the parallel direction from the runway (360 degrees), with the right top (360 degrees), and to measure 20 seconds after passing through a parallel point from the right top of the runway, and to land 3 lines and 4 lines. However, the actual landing procedure at the time of the instant accident was considered to be as follows: (a) the passage at the right top of the runway; (b) the passage at the right top of the runway; and (c) the passage at the right top of the runway and the landing.

(2) The procedure for vessel access to the port of Kimhae and the procedure for flight crew required

(A) Article 1:4.6 and 4.7 of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s “Aircraft Operation Process (DOC 8168-OPS/611)” and Articles 30 and 77 of the People’s Republic of China’s Civil Aviation Decree (hereinafter “Civil Aviation Decree”) provide that a pilot approaching a vessel shall fly within the zone of access to the vessel only when he/she is able to continuously identify the runway or its surrounding circumstances on his/her own land while flying within the zone of access to the aircraft in question. If the runway or its surrounding circumstances are not recognizable into land, he/she shall immediately move within the zone of access to the vessel.

(B) The procedure for the right-to-way approach of the Kimhae Airport runway 18R is a general procedure for the right-to-land access of the lines that are not set up using reference materials on the ground or the direction of the runway, and there is a need for separate cooperation between crew members in the case of the right-to-way access. Since it is difficult for the captain to confirm the runway located on the right-hand side because it is difficult for him to check the runway at the right-hand side at the right-hand side, the pilot of the right-hand side to check the passage time of the runway, the accurate time measurement for the three lines, the position of the runway and the reference materials on the ground, and the captain must give special attention to such advice.

(C) According to the Defendant’s flag training pocket book, a line approach procedure is to be conducted by automatic flight equipment (hereinafter “A/P”), Auto Trotle (hereinafter “A/T”), and Fl right DNA (hereinafter “F/D”), when the breadth is used, the breadth is to be the time of the defense angle (hereinafter “LOC”), the vertical length is to be called “LOC”); the vertical length is to be chosen at a vertical speed of 36L in the direction of the runway; hereinafter “V/S”; the vertical length is to be automatic landing range of 36L in the direction of the runway; hereinafter “V/S”; and it is to be conducted in the direction of 36L in the direction of the early landing of the runway by means of the 36th direction of the runway; and it is to be conducted in the direction of the 5th direction of the early landing of the runway; and it is to be conducted in the direction of the 5th direction of the entrance and landing of the runway by means of the last 36th direction of the runway.

(D) The Bolar training manual, a manufacturer of the instant aircraft, uses the minimum meteorological value relating to the speed of towing prior access. Of access, fraps may be selected at 25 degrees or 30 degrees. Of the approach, fraps shall be maintained at the minimum level by using high-level maintenance fraps, and in the part of the engine direction of prior access, frout selection frouts or frouts shall be used. If prior access is made from precision approach, use LOC and VNAV or V/S Mods. The reason why automatic flight devices do not recommend the use of prior access (hereinafter referred to as “APP”) frouts or frouts without automatic maintenance of the APP system is that it is not the same as the APP manual that has to be used by the Defendant, but is not the same as the APP manual that has to be used by the frouts or the frouts or frouts.

(3) The details of the vessel’s access to the instant aircraft

(A) The instant aircraft entered the 36 km of the runway as a result of final access to the precision meter direction of the runway, by means of access to the 36 km of the runway, and thereafter conducted a line approach in the direction of 18R of the runway. The minimum limit of the line access was 700 feet, and 3.2 km of the correction.

(B) The instant aircraft entered the final access by using LOC Mods in the status of 030 feet, and after 7 seconds from the entry into the final access, connected the AP Mods, which is vertical Mods, not connected with the Glides Slides, and used V/S Mods and FLCH Mods for lectures up to approximately 1,00 feet, and used the flved Mods to maintain the direction of the aircraft, maintaining approximately 700 feets, and using the flved Mods for entry into the course.

(C) After checking the runway from approximately 1,100 feet to enter the runway, the plane captain of the first part of the aircraft, “in-house,” expressed his intention, and operated the automatic steering system in a swimming way. When deeming that the aircraft in this case confirmed the runway into the runway, the approach engineer issued a radio frequency change order to “Aropona 129, 129, 11, 100, 18, 129, 129, 200, 200, 300, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

(D) At the time, the first-class pilot, who was in charge of the flight, entered the course at the time when 11:20 m3 p.m. passes from the 36L final access to the runway, did not hold a 45 m. line to enter the course to the route of the route at a standard rate of 3 m.m. (the first m.) and met with a small slope angle (5.3 p.m. 19.9 m.) and delayed the time when 315 m. turn back to the direction of 18 m.m. (Thhhhhhhh). The captain re-entered the direction of 15 m.m. to the direction of the direction of the runway at the time when 11:20 m.m. (the first m.) started to operate the aircraft at a rate of 15 m. m. m. and the direction of 17 m. p.m. m. to the direction of the aircraft.

(E) When the instant aircraft flys at a speed of 150 to 160 knotss on the course of the baselines by not later than three lines prior to the vessel access, the aircraft passed at a parallel point with the runway 18R access length, the speed exceeds the maximum speed of 140 knotss “C” (the speed at the time the said aircraft passes through a parallel point with the runway 18R access length of the runway, the speed was 158 knotss, and the site speed (GS) was 177 knotss, which was extended to the course of the passage).

(f) The captain did not start three normal lines at 11:20:22, when 20 seconds have elapsed since the commencement of the time measurement on the course of the direction-setting approach (the foregoing visual captain referred to as “Turling to the extent of right,” and the part I pilot at 1:20:24, when 22 seconds have passed from the time-frame measurement, referred to as “as soon as possible, and so too late.” Therefore, the captain and the part I pilot at the time were aware that the time measurement for the selection of three lines has been completed at 1:20:25 to 11:20:33 at the time of the measurement, but the landing permission was issued from the control tower at approximately 8 seconds, but the direction-setting direction-setting direction-setting direction-setting direction-setting direction-setting has been 3:1:25 at the time of the operation of the aircraft at the point of 1:30 od:1:30 od:5 od: 1:20 od. od. od.

(g) In 11:20:54, the captain requested the vice-captain to “Do and Do to find a runway.” However, the vice-captain stated that “it is difficult to fly” in 11:20:59 without any response that visual verification of the runway or ground reference water was made. The aircraft entered this time, but the captain did not immediately take the way, and tried to take the way into the direction of the runway (180 degrees), and then take the way again. At 11:21:02, the first-class pilot provided advice that “I will take care of the altitude” without mentioning an external situation, and that “I:1:21:09, the captain took care of the runway “I” and “I:1:21:10, 11:10, 210, 21:09, and 1:1:1:1:00, 25:00, 15:00, 21:1:00, 21:00, 15:00.

(h) Although the instant aircraft was installed with a ground access warning device (GPWS), the franchise was set up, and the maximum access rate was 1,800 FPM, so a warning of ground access was not issued on the design.

(4) The captain's career

(A) The captain of the instant aircraft entered the Defendant on July 1994 and was the captain from November 26, 2001, and served as the captain of the instant aircraft with a total of 289 hours to 30 minutes per annum 767 type, but there was no experience of vessel access at the Kimhae Port, but the Defendant conducted a vessel access training for the 767 type, only for the Berne Airport, and did not undergo a separate special training for the relation that the Kimhae Airport was not classified as a special airport.

(B) On September 1993, the first assistant operator of the instant aircraft was employed by the Defendant, and on January 23, 2002, the first assistant operator was assigned to the Defendant, and on February 23, 2002, the instant aircraft was performing the first duty as assistant operator in Part I, Section 767-200, the first assistant operator of the instant aircraft, and the instant aircraft was a first assistant operator in Part I, who was on the third anniversary of the Kim Sea Port, and was engaged in two times of flight at the Kimhae Airport before becoming a first assistant in Part I.

(C) On August 28, 200, the second assistant officer was employed by the defendant on 1997 and completed the conversion training and examination of the assistant pilot in the early stage from the defendant on 28 November 2000, the second examination was completed on 11 December 200, the regular skill examination was completed between June 25, 200 and June 27, 2001, and there was no experience of flying at the Kimhae port in 2002.

(5) Meteorological conditions;

(A) approximately 20 minutes prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, the weather weather in the Kim Sea Airport was 8/8, and the old state was 500 feet Scated (the state where the amount of the former covers 3/8 to 4/8), Broke (the state where the amount of the former cover covers 5/8 to 7/8) in 100 feet, 2,500 feet, and 8/8,00 feet (the amount of the former diameter was 3,200 meters). The correction was 3,200 meters, the southwest wind was 7 mar, but the southwest wind increased to 12 mar, and it was possible to change the runway to 18 mar in the Kim Sea Zone before the issuance of the accident, and the state of 12 minutes prior to the issuance of the accident was less than 12 minutes.

(B) When an aircraft has access to approximately 700 feet lines, it could not see the aircraft as its surface in the control tower. However, it was possible to see the aircraft as locked from the west edges of the runway, and the three-time point edges of the runway 18R of the runway were covered by a little height of the aircraft to the north, while the aircraft moves to the north of the mountain zone.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 36, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Markets:

According to the above facts, the captain, etc. of the instant aircraft at the time of the instant case appears to be unable to secure sufficient view for the transition of the runway as it passes through the foot while holding three lines and four lines due to bad weather conditions. If such circumstances are, the captain, etc. of the instant aircraft at the time of the instant case, who is in the position of absolute authority and responsibility for all matters pertaining to the safe operation of the aircraft boarding and who is in the position of directing and supervising the crew and the captain of the instant aircraft in the position of assisting the captain of the instant aircraft and the captain of the first and second assistant officers, who are in the position of assisting the captain’s affairs, have a duty of care to prevent the collision by comparing, closely comparing, examining, the procedure and conditions according to the turn-on approach, and taking prompt action procedures, etc.

However, according to the above facts, the captain, etc. of the aircraft of this case, without raising any problem or discussion about the location and route of the aircraft involved in the accident, did not take a minimum level of landing meteorological value for large aircraft related to meeting access, and did not take an approach to the runway 18R without any smooth communication with the control tower, and did not take an approach to the runway 18R, the captain, etc. of the aircraft of this case, who did not actively take an action at the time of the collision with the runway 150 to 160 knots at the maximum speed of "C," the captain, etc. of the aircraft of this case, who did not take an action at the time of the collision with the runway 18R, did not actively take an action at the time of the collision with the runway 18R, and did not take an action at the time of the collision with the runway 18R, and did not take an action immediately at the time of the collision with the runway.

Thus, in light of the fact that the above act of captain, etc. is an essential condition such as accurate speed of direction and high level maintenance, the confirmation of continuous visual reference, and the timing and adequate three lines in the access and landing of the vessel, it is evaluated that the above act of captain, etc. is conducted beyond simple negligence and by recognizing that the damage would occur."

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the captain, etc., while operating the aircraft of this case within the scope of his duty, caused an accident where all the deceased persons of this case died due to the above negligence, and thus, the Defendant, the employer, did not have the right to invoke the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Warsaw Convention that limits the carrier’s liability for damages, and ultimately, is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for all the damages caused by the accident

4. Scope of damages.

A. Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “the deceased Nonparty 1’s heir”).

(1) The lost income of the deceased non-party 1: 556,865,523 won calculated by the present value of April 15, 2002 at the time of death (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the total amount below”) in accordance with the Hofman Identification Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the facts and assessment as follows:

(A) Facts of recognition

(1) Male by gender: Male.

Date of birth, May 10, 1958

Colonel: 43 years old and 11 months old at the time of an accident;

Name of rental: 32.52

(2) Occupation and actual income status.

Insurance solicitor: 5,930,545 won per month [1,166,54 won per month for the one year prior to the accident ± 12 months ± the deceased non-party 1's heir was working as an insurance solicitor at the same time while working as an insurance solicitor. In addition, the deceased non-party 1 was engaged in agriculture. Thus, the plaintiff 1,819,90 won per month in the format restaurant other than the income from insurance solicitor, and 1,302,425 won from farmland cultivation should be recognized as the deceased non-party 1's monthly income. However, according to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 8 and 10, the plaintiff 1, who is the wife of the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, was the business owner, and the farmers in the farmland ledger are also the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 (the deceased non-party 1 was registered as the member of the household, and the defendant 1 was not able to be registered as the insurance solicitor or the plaintiff 1).

③ Operating period: Until May 9, 2018, when he turns 60 years of age (the deceased Nonparty 1’s heir claims that the period of operation of Nonparty 1 would reach 65 years of age, but it is reasonable to view that the period of operation of an insurance solicitor would be until he reaches 60 years of age, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da28536, Sept. 9, 194, etc.). The deceased Nonparty 1’s heir’s above assertion is without merit).

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

(C) mountain: 556,865,523 won (=5,930,545 won) x 140.8468 x 2/3)

(2) Funeral expenses: Plaintiffs 13,000,000

(3) Consolation money: The plaintiffs' age, family relationship, background and result of the accident of this case, and other various circumstances shown in the oral proceedings of this case

deceased Nonparty 1: 20,000,000

Plaintiff 1: 15,00,000 won

Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 each 5,000,000 won

The deceased Nonparty 1’s heir separately claimed the payment of KRW 250,00,000 as a special compensation for the instant accident. However, the written evidence Nos. 33 and 34 alone is insufficient to deem that the above heir should pay the special compensation in addition to the consolation money as seen above. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the claim for the special compensation is without merit.

(4) Inheritance relations

Plaintiff 1: 192,288,507 won [Article 556,865,523 won + 20,000 consolation money + 3/9];

Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 respectively 128,192,338 [Article 556,865,523 won + 20,000 consolation money + 2/9];

(5) The amount recognized

① The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 210,288,507 (=the inheritance amount of KRW 192,288,507 + 15,000 + funeral expenses of KRW 15,00,000 + funeral expenses of KRW 3,00), ② each of the Plaintiff 2,33,192,338 won (=the inheritance amount of KRW 128,192,338 + the consolation money of KRW 5,00,00) and each of the above amounts from April 15, 202, which is the date of the instant accident, to the Defendant’s dispute over the scope of the obligation to perform from April 15, 202 to June 23, 2006, which is the date of the instant judgment, to pay 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Evidence A No. 7-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Plaintiffs 5, 6, and 7 (hereinafter “the deceased 2’s successors”). The calculation content refers to the attached table of calculation of damages.

(1) Net income of the net 2: 571,749,013 won calculated at the present price of April 15, 2002, calculated on April 15, 2002, pursuant to the Hofman Identification Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the facts and assessment as follows:

(A) Facts of recognition

(1) Male by gender: Male.

Date of birth: September 18, 1961

Colonel: 40 years of age and 6 months of age at the time of an accident;

Name of rental: 35.23 years

(2) Occupation and operation period.

The deceased 2 was working for the 20th GG 6th GG dyplate Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “LG dyplate”) at the time of the instant accident, and the retirement age for the 4th GG dyplate may be extended by the time of reaching the retirement age by the age of 5 or 5 until the due date for the root that reaches the retirement age. As such, under the premise that the deceased 2 is working for the dyplate for the year of 55 years old, the daily wage for the 60th GG 20 years thereafter is calculated on the premise that the average wage for the 20th GG 6th G from May 202 to 6th 206th 3th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 206th 26th 206th 26th 206.

본문내 포함된 표 시기 월급, 상여금 지급기준(연 20회) 국내근무 월수입 합계 월급, 상여금 교육비 기타 2002.4.23.~2002.5.22. 1,918,150(38,363,000) 3,196,916 69,586 836,106 4,102,608 ？ ？ 해외근무 ？ 국내수령액 해외수령액 교육비 ？ 2002.5.23.~2003.2.22. 1,918,150(38,363,000) 2,424,250 4,519,813 69,586 7,013,649 2003.2.23.~2004.2.22. 2,044,747(40,894,958) 2,580,829 4,602,891 69,586 7,253,306 2004.2.23~2005.2.22. 2,226,730(44,534,609) 2,724,884 4,832,952 98,553 7,656,389 2005.2.23.~2006.2.22. 2,342,520(46,850,408) 2,866,034 4,913,178 165,533 7,944,735 2006.2.23.~2007.2.22. 2,483,071(49,661,432) 3,049,036 4,992,716 165,533 8,207,285 ？ ？ 국내근무 ？ 월급, 상여금 교육비 기타 2007.2.23.~2008.2.22. 2,483,071(49,661,432) 4,138,452 571,516 836,106 5,546,074 2008.2.23.~2009.2.22. 2,483,071(49,661,432) 4,138,452 894,166 836,106 5,868,724 2009.2.23.~2011.2.22. 2,483,071(49,661,432) 4,138,452 810,833 836,106 5,785,391 2011.2.23.~2012.2.22. 2,483,071(49,661,432) 4,138,452 810,833 836,106 5,379,974 2012.2.23.~2016.12.20. 2,483,071(49,661,432) 4,138,452 405,416 836,106 4,974,558 2016.12.21.~2021.9.7. 1일 55,252 ？ ？ ？ 1,215,544

(unit: Won)

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

(b) Retirement pay;

The retirement allowance amounting to KRW 152,967,658, which could have been received for 30 years and nine months from March 10, 1986 to December 20, 2016, in accordance with the remuneration regulations of El branch of El branch where the deceased 2 worked (=30 years and nine months of continuous service x average wage of KRW 4,974,558) at the time of the instant accident, KRW 88,247,041 at the time of the instant accident.

(3) Funeral expenses: Plaintiffs 53,000,000

(4) Notarial services;

(A) The deceased 2’s heir 49,821,113 retirement pay received in return for continuous service by the deceased 2 from El branch to the time of the accident.

(b) Survivors’ compensation annuity;

The Defendant’s survivors’ compensation annuity amounting to 129,00,000 won to be paid by the Defendant to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to a decision in lieu of a final and conclusive mediation of the amount of indemnity claim case No. 2004Ga

(5) Consolation money: The plaintiffs' age, family relationship, background and result of the accident of this case, and other various circumstances shown in the oral proceedings of this case

Net 2: 20,000,000

Plaintiff 5: 15,000,000

Plaintiff 6: 7,500,000 won

Plaintiff 7: 7,500,000 won

The deceased 2’s heir separately claims for the payment of KRW 250,00,000 in total as the special compensation for the instant accident. However, the entries in the evidence Nos. 33 and 34 alone are insufficient to deem that the above heir should pay the special compensation in addition to the consolation money as seen above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the claim for the special compensation is without merit.

(6) Inheritance relations

(1) Inherited property: 501,174,941 won [the actual income = KRW 571,749,013 + Retirement allowance of KRW 88,247,041 + 20,000 + Retirement allowance of KRW 49,821,113 - Survivors’ compensation annuity of KRW 129,00,000];

(2) Inheritance amount.

Plaintiff 5: 214,789,260 won (=501,174,941 won x 3/7)

Plaintiff 6, 7: 143,192,840 won (=501,174,941 won x 2/7)

(7) The amount recognized

① The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 5 the amount of KRW 232,789,260 (the inheritance amount of KRW 214,789,260 + funeral expenses of KRW 3,00,000 + 15,00,000 + consolation money of KRW 150,692,840 each (=the inheritance amount of KRW 143,192,840 + the consolation money of KRW 7,500,00) and each of the above money from April 15, 2002, which is the date of the instant accident, to the extent of the Defendant’s duty to perform, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 23, 2006, which is the date of the instant judgment, and KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the next day until the date of full payment.

[Based on Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 17, evidence 18-1, 2, 19, evidence 20-1, 2, 25-28, evidence 38-1, 2, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

[Ground of ship] Part of Evidence No. 18-2 of Gap evidence No. 18-2 (the part of the wage for overseas residence is the amount received by the deceased 2 while working in an overseas branch when plaintiff 6,7 was an elementary school student.)

C. Plaintiffs 8, 9, 10, and 11 (hereinafter “the deceased 3 inheritors”).

(1) The net income of the network 3: 142,144,725 won, calculated in accordance with the Hofman Identification Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month based on the facts and assessment as follows:

(A) Facts of recognition

(1) Male by gender: Male.

Date of birth: September 1, 1953

Colonel: 48 years of age and 7 months of age at the time of an accident;

Lending Name: 28.16

(2) Occupation and actual income status.

Insurance solicitor: 1,982,172 won per month (the monthly average income for the period of eight months from August 2001 to March 2002, the heir of the network 3 had been operating Lestop at the same time while serving as an insurance solicitor. Thus, in addition to the income from the insurance solicitor, the monthly income of Lestop shall be recognized as the monthly income of 1,009,933 won in addition to the income from the insurance solicitor. However, according to the evidence No. 31, the above Lestop's name is limited to the plaintiff 8. Thus, according to the above evidence No. 30, No. 31, No. 32-1, and No. 32-2, each of these statements alone are compatible with each other, and the net 3 is substantially engaged in the management of Lestop, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the loss of 1,093 won per month, 309, and 93).

(3) Operating period: Until August 31, 2013, when he turns 60 years of age [the deceased 3 inheritors claim that the period of operation of 3 years of age is 65 years of age, but it is reasonable to view that the period of operation of an insurance solicitor is until he turns 60 years of age unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da28536, Sept. 9, 199, etc.). The above assertion by the deceased 3 inheritors is without merit).

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

(C) mountain: 142,144,725 won (=1,982,172 won x 107.5674 x 2/3)

(2) Funeral expenses: Plaintiffs 83,000,000

(3) Consolation money: The plaintiffs' age, family relationship, background and result of the accident of this case, and other various circumstances shown in the oral proceedings of this case

net 3: 20,000,000

Plaintiff 8: 15,000,000 won

Plaintiff 9, 10, 11: each of 5,000,000 won

The deceased 3’s heir separately claims for the payment of KRW 250,00,000 in total as the special compensation for the instant accident. However, the entries in the evidence Nos. 33 and 34 alone are insufficient to deem that the above heir should pay the special compensation in addition to the consolation money as seen above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the claim for the special compensation is without merit.

(4) Inheritance relations

Plaintiff 8: 54,048,241 won [the actual income of 142,144,725 won + 20,000 consolation money + 3/9];

Plaintiff 9, 10, 11: 36,032,161 respectively [Plaintiff 9,100: 36,032,161 [Plaintiff 142,144,725 won + solatium 20,000 + 2/9];

(5) The amount recognized

① The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 8 the amount of KRW 72,048,241 (the inheritance amount of KRW 54,048,241 + 15,00,000 + funeral expenses of KRW 3,00,00), ② to the Plaintiff 9,032,161 (=the inheritance amount of KRW 36,032,161 + the consolation money of KRW 5,00,00) and each of the above money, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from April 15, 202, which is the date of the instant accident, to pay the amount of KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 23, 2006, which is the date of the instant judgment, and KRW 20% per annum as stipulated under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 21-1 through 4, and 29, the purport of the whole pleadings

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of each above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)