201 Doz. 10325 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

1. Gamb○ ( South, 1942)

2. Park △△△ (n, 1969 students).

3 . 박▷▷ ( 남 , 1970년생 )

4. Gambol △△ (Inter-Korean, 1972)

Doz.

December 27, 2010

1 . 피고는 원고 박○○에게 19 , 411 , 095원 , 원고 박△△ , 박▷▷ , 박▽▽에게 각 14 , 966 , 650원 및 위 각 금원에 대하여 2011 . 4 . 28 . 부터 2011 . 11 . 11 . 까지는 연 5 % 의 , 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 각 지급하

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay the plaintiff Park ○-○ with 41, 44, 166 won, the money calculated by each ratio of 25, 888, 61 per annum from April 28, 201 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

1) On April 27, 2011: around 40, 201: Around 40, at the parking lot of the '○○○pung-dong' restaurant operated by the Defendant located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, in charge of parking the said restaurant as an employee of the said restaurant on behalf of the customer, the ○○○○○, who is in charge of driving the said restaurant on behalf of the customer, was driving the 2 Mem 31 Mem 31 Mem Mem H3 car owned by the customer, leading up to a speed of about five kilometers in the Si in the parking lot

The place was a parking lot in front of the above restaurant, adjacent to India, and there was a inundation walking through the parking lot. Since the above DosH3 car caused a situation where the body of the vehicle was high so that it could not be seen easily, both ○○ should have taken into consideration whether there was a pedestrian or not while driving the vehicle, but by negligence, the Do○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the Deceased”) who was walking the parking lot was negligent, caused the above DosH3 car to go beyond the bottom of the above DosH3 car, and died of the vehicle due to long-term damage to the mouth and the blood transfusion around that time (hereinafter referred to as “the accident in this case”).

2 ) 원고 박○○은 망인의 남편 , 원고 박△△ , 박▷▷ , 박▽▽는 망인의 자녀들이고 , 피고는 양○○의 사용자이다 .

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 10, 11 each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for the damage suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the user of ○○○.

C. Limitation on liability for damages

On the other hand, the location of the instant accident is limited to 80% of the Defendant’s liability in consideration of the circumstances, such as the fact that the instant accident occurred as a parking lot was in contact with India (as stated in No. 11 of the evidence No. 1).

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Medical expenses: 388,810 won paid by the plaintiffs (the fact that there is no dispute)

(b) Funeral expenses: 5,00,000 won paid by the plaintiffs (the fact that there is no dispute).

C. Limitation on liability

Since the defendant's ratio of liability is 80%, 4,311,048 won ( = 5,388, 810 won x 0.8)

(d) Condolence money;

1) Reasons for consideration: The circumstances of the instant accident, the deceased and the plaintiffs' age, family relationship, and all other circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case.

2) Recognition Amount: Deceased 40,00,000,000, each of the plaintiffs 5,000,000,000 won

(e) Inheritance relationship;

1) Amount to be inherited: 40,000,000 won for consolation money

2 ) 상속금액 : 원고 박○○ ( 상속지분 3 / 9 ) 13 , 333 , 333원 , 원고 박△△ , 박▷▷ , 박

(7) Inheritance (2/9), 8, 888, 888 won, respectively.

3. Conclusion

그렇다면 , 피고는 원고 박○○에게 19 , 411 , 095원 [ = 재산상 손해 1 , 077 , 762원 ( = 4 , 311 , 048원 4 ) + 위자료 5 , 000 , 000원 + 상속분 13 , 333 , 333원 ] , 원고 박△△ , 박▷▷ , 박 ▽▽에게 각 14 , 966 , 650원 ( = 재산상 손해 1 , 077 , 762원 + 위자료 5 , 000 , 000원 + 상속분 8 , 888 , 888원 ) 및 위 각 금원에 대하여 이 사건 사고 발생일인 2011 . 4 . 28 . 부터 피고가 그 이행의무의 존부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당하다고 인정되는 이 판결선고일인 2011 . 11 . 11 . 까지는 민법이 정한 연 5 % 의 , 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 소송촉진

Since there is a duty to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Claims, etc., each of the claims in this case shall be partly accepted within the extent of the above recognition.

Judges Kim Jong-il

Judges Park Sung-gu

Judges 00 Hun-Ba