2015 Ghana 5030872 Compensation (as a result)

1. The AA

2. MaximumB

3. MaximumCC;

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al.

[Defendant-Appellant]

Korea

Legal Representative Kim Hyun-ro

Litigation Performers Kim Jong- Station, New Ironers

May 17, 2016

July 22, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant 5, 218, 746 won and each of the above 5, 218, 746 won to the plaintiff Song-A, the plaintiff 87, 828, 119 won, the plaintiff ChoiB, and the lowestCC, respectively.

For the money, 5% per annum from October 6, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and the following day.

It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

1. Case overview and major issues

As the plaintiff, the heir of the deceased ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) who died of a mine explosion accident asserts that the defendant should be liable for damages because the defendant's fault against the defendant Republic of Korea in failing to fulfill his responsibility as a mine manager in relation to the above explosion accident.

The defendant asserts that the defendant is one of the joint tortfeasors who provided the causes for the explosion accident to which the deceased belongs, and that the defendant has already repaid the amount exceeding the claim amount of this case to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs' claim of this case is groundless.

One of the main issues is whether the pool-Jacheon Forestry Cooperatives provided part of the causes for the mine explosion accident of this case as joint tortfeasor.

2. recognised basic facts.

A. On May 8, 2014, the ordering person of the instant forest tending project and the Vindication-gun Incheon Metropolitan City Corporation ordered the forest tending project (hereinafter “the instant forest tending project”) to an area subject to the Cheongjin-gun, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant forest tending project”), and concluded a contract for construction works with the following details, which selected Nonparty Cheongjin-gun Forest Association (hereinafter “the instant association”) as the contractor and is entrusted with the construction of the said project. The instant association was in accordance with the Forestry Cooperatives Act:

A regional forestry cooperative with the jurisdiction of potter-jin-gun and Seocheon-si, and a private forest owner and forestry workers were organized as its members. A regional forestry cooperative is operating a forest project under the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act with jurisdiction of the competent local government.

The contractor: The contractor: the Seogjin-gun-gun National Forestry Cooperatives Contract Number 2014050886 - 00 forest tending project owner in 2014: the amount of the contract for forest tending project: 1,347,672, and 120 won: 1,34/120: the date of completion of the contract for forest tending project: 20/04 (b) of the instant forest tending project owner and the deceased, who had worked for the forest tending project in this case, selected as the contractor for the forest tending project from July 13, 2014 to the date designated by the instant association.

C. The president ①, a working group leader of the instant association, led 10 workers, including the Deceased, including the Deceased, and started her liver work from October 5, 2014 to 88-2 Marine Corps 60-2 Marine Corps No. 6737 units adjacent to the above unit 137 units of the YY YY YY YY YYY YYYYY YYYYY YYYYYYY YYYYYYY YYYYYYYYUGGGGGE YYYYY YYYYYYY YYYYYY YYYYY YYYYY YYYYY YYYYY YYY YYYY YYY YY YYY YYY YYY YY YY YYY YY YY YY YYY YY YYY YYYYY YYY YYYYYYY YYY.

3) The instant association, the contractor of the instant forest tending project, must dispatch an on-site agent, the main duties of which are to direct and supervise the work at the site of the workers, to prevent safety accidents, and to take measures against accidents that occur during the work, to the said site separately from the above site, and in fact, the instant association appointed two (2) and three (3) as the on-site agent, who is a class 5 employee, but the partnership is among them

D. D. D. H. H. was audited by an organization and did not dispatch it to a field agent. On the other hand, the working group leader ①, the head of the working group, who uses the direct electric saw and uses the h.m., and takes the role of the head of the working group ①, the head of the working group, who carries out the h.m., together with the project and the head of the association of this case. D. D., the head of the association of this case, with specifications and drawings, provided safety education at one time, and displayed the area of the h.m. in advance prior to the work. The work of this case was carried out according to such indication, but was laid open in advance, and was not considered at the time of the above work instruction and the indication of the area.

4) Meanwhile, around 1977, the mine of this case was laid underground in the military unit under the defendant's jurisdiction and was washed away. However, the defendant could not accurately grasp and record the present position where the mine remains out of the military unit under the defendant's jurisdiction. In the area where the mine of this case was laid underground including the field of the accident, the long-term steel network was set up, and it did not have a signboard such as accurately informing the facilities or locations to prevent access to the point where the mine was mine or warning access. Further, the above workers, including the deceased, entered the entrance of the above military unit on the day of the accident and moved to the above work site after going through the above work site, but the above work site was not considered to have been notified on their own, and the moving route or movement was not grasped, and the defendant did not take any action to prevent the deceased from entering the mine area and did not take any action to prevent the accident.

D. On October 18, 2014, the instant union and the deceased agreed to pay KRW 4770 million as compensation for damages in relation to the death of the deceased (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) between the Plaintiffs, who are the inheritors of the deceased, and the deceased, as the heir at the time of the death. However, the industrial accident compensation that the bereaved family members would receive according to the industrial accident compensation insurance and the workers’ accident compensation that the instant union would receive from the LIG insurance company, and the said amount received from the LIG company, etc. were to be deducted from the agreed amount of compensation for damages as set forth above. The relevant provisions of the instant agreement set forth below.

1. Contents of the agreement, Gap (the association of this case) shall prepare this agreement with the legal inheritors to pay 473,000,000 won (including industrial accident compensation examination money and worker disaster compensation insurance money) for the consolation money and civil or criminal compensation for the accident resulting from the accident and death of this case. This agreement shall take effect immediately after signing and sealing it. 3. Legal inheritors shall have no further claim for damages, civil or criminal objection to Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the Cheongjin-gun Office and the superior agency Gap's order, regardless of any pretext after the formation of this agreement. 3. Matters of the special agreement; 00,000 won for the deceased, 200,000 won for the deceased, 300,000 won for the bereaved family members, 10,0000 won for the bereaved family members, 10,0000 won for the deceased, 10,0000 won for the 20,0000 won for the bereaved family members, 1086,8186,586886,086, etc.

E. On March 18, 2015, the instant association filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant for reimbursement against the Defendant, claiming for tort liability against the instant accident. As such, the instant association filed a claim for reimbursement seeking reimbursement of the said money (Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap572101) by asserting that the said association should refund part of the money paid to the Plaintiffs, who are the bereaved family members of the Deceased, and damages for its delay.

(f) The deceased’s occupation, etc.

According to the life table of 2013 issued by the Statistics Korea, the deceased, who was born on February 28, 1970 and was physically healthy male in the age of 44 years and 7 months at the time of the instant accident, may continue to exist until December 31, 2048, which is 34. According to the market wage rate of the second half of 2014, which is close to the date of death, the average life expectancy of Korean male in the age of 44 years and 125 won per day.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 9, 11, 12, Eul evidence 1 to 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion as to the cause of the claim and the determination as to whether the claim is justifiable

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The fact-finding mine causing the death of the deceased is a explosive installed and managed by the defendant, and the defendant has a legal duty of care to notify that it is a mine-routing area and to take all measures to prevent safety accidents in order to prevent a civilian from entering the mine area in order to prevent any necessary surveillance and access to the mine area. Thus, the defendant neglected this and neglected to install a dangerous sign or warning sign on the mine area in this case and neglected the deceased, etc. to enter the mine area in this case, thereby causing the death of the deceased. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for compensation for the death of the deceased.

B) The amount of damages (1) the deceased’s lost profit

The Deceased’s work and livelihood had been maintained until the death of the instant accident. If the Deceased did not die due to the instant accident, at least 60 years and 5 months (185 months) in the future, he/she could have worked more than 60 years and 15 months until the age of 60. Therefore, according to the unit price of the Si’s wages during the second half of 2014 near the date of death, the current adult male’s salary shall be 122,125 won per month, and the above maximum working age shall be 122,125 won per month, and the amount of income up to the above maximum working age shall be 367,898, 419 won (No. 367,50,000 won per month) calculated at the present price at the rate of 5% per month (No. 46,000 won per month) x 36,000 won per month, the total amount of non-party 2, 125 x 36,0636

After a mine explosion accident occurred, the deceased died as he was left unattended for more than four hours in the place of the accident, because relief measures were not taken immediately. If so, the deceased suffered physical or mental pain which cannot be taken verbally due to the accident in this case. Therefore, the defendant is responsible for monetary injury. Therefore, considering all circumstances such as the deceased's age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from damage, degree of negligence, etc. at the time of the accident, the defendant should pay 40,000,000 won as consolation money to the deceased. (3) The deceased's inheritance of the claim for compensation for damages should be paid to the deceased.

The amount of damage claim against the deceased against the defendant is KRW 285, 265, and 612 [ = 245, 265, 612 won + gold 40,00,00 won] and the above damage claim was inherited to the plaintiff SongA, the largestB, and the highestCC, who is the inheritor. When calculating the property inherited to the plaintiffs according to the inherited portion, the amount of damage claim was inherited to the plaintiff SongA, the heir. The amount of KRW 122,256,690 ( = 285, 265, 612 x 3/7 x 3/612 x 3/7), the amount of KRW 81,50,460 ( = 285, 265, 6265, 612 x 627 x 47) of the deceased.

The plaintiffs paid a funeral amounting to KRW 15,265,150 due to the death of the deceased. Since the above funeral expenses are expenses incurred due to the death of the deceased, and the plaintiffs, the inheritor, are in principle borne according to their statutory shares in inheritance, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff Song-A for KRW 5,00,00 among the above funeral expenses, for KRW 2,142,857 (Funeral expenses KRW 5,000,000, X3/7), and for KRW 1,428,571 (Funeral expenses KRW 5,00,000, X3/7) to the plaintiff Song-A in proportion to their shares in inheritance, respectively, and KRW 1,428,571 (Funeral expenses KRW 5,00,000, 2/7) to the plaintiff Han-A in proportion to their respective shares in inheritance.

(5) The plaintiffs' consolation money

As seen above, the deceased's death and caused severe mental suffering. In light of all circumstances such as the plaintiffs' age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions at the time of the accident in this case, and the degree of suffering from damage, the defendant paid 20,000,000 won to the plaintiff Song-A, his spouse, and 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff ChoiB, the most BB, and the highestCC, who are their children, respectively, as consolation money (6).

The plaintiffs received KRW 132,00,000 as the industrial accident insurance money in relation to the death of the deceased. If the above amount is offset by the shares of the plaintiffs, the defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff Song-A in 122,256,690 won + 20,00,000 won + 2,142,857 won (Funeral expenses) + 56,571,428 won (Funeral KRW 132,00,00 x 3/7) 】 55,218,746 won [the defendant shall be liable to the plaintiff Song-A in 122, 256,690 won + 20,000 won + 30,000 won x 3/700 x 3/700], 205, 301, 4600 won + 460, 2701, 207, 746

The defendant is obligated to pay the amount of 87, 828, 119 won, the amount of 55, 218, 746 won, and the amount of 55, 218, and 746 won, respectively, to the plaintiff Song-A-A-be from October 6, 2014 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

C) Whether the agreement between the instant union and the Plaintiffs did not affect the Defendant’s liability for damages

The contents of the instant agreement between the instant association and the Plaintiffs include the purport that the claim for damages against the Defendant is possible without any influence on this agreement, and the occurrence of the instant accident is the most significant contribution by the Defendant’s negligence. Therefore, the amount received by the Plaintiffs according to the instant agreement does not have the effect as the repayment of the Defendant’s liability for damages, and thus, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiffs for the full amount of the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs, notwithstanding

2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is the back of the 9196 unit, not only the civilian but also the military personnel’s access to the site. In order to conduct forest tending business at this place, it is necessary from the Vindication-gun to consult on work with the 9196 unit, but not to contact the Defendant’s soldiers, including the Deceased, who left the said unit and did not contact with the Defendant’s soldiers (1) (1). The Marine Corps 9196 unit committed efforts to prevent mine accidents, such as installing wire nets and signs that warn the risk of explosives, such as mines, and thus, the Defendant fulfilled its duty of care to take all measures to prevent accidents.

B) Even if the Defendant’s breach of the legal duty of care regarding mine accidents is recognized, the instant mine accident is a joint tort where (i) the design negligence in the white design of the forest of the forest of the design firm’s office; (ii) the negligence in the supervision of the green technology group in the forest of the supervision firm’s office; and (iii) the negligence in the implementation of the Jincheon Forestry Cooperatives, an executor, and the joint negligence by the Defendant.

C) Fruits offsetting

If a person is injured due to an explosion in an area where a mine rupture sign is located, the victim was negligent in not preventing the accident. Thus, the victim, among the soldiers belonging to the defendant, was forced to contact the body, including the deceased, if the body was out of the rupture, but the body was forced to contact the body, but the body, including the deceased, was outside the rupture and did not contact the body, and when considering that the body, including the deceased, had known that the mine area was installed in the vicinity of the mine area warning board, etc. before the occurrence of the accident, the body, including the deceased, could have known that the mine area was installed in the vicinity of the accident area, and therefore, it should be taken into account in determining the amount of damage compensation ① and the deceased's negligence.

D) Mutual aid such as offsetting profits and losses

With respect to the mine accident in this case, the Plaintiffs, the bereaved family members of the deceased, and the instant association, the employer of the deceased, agreed to pay 473,00,000 won (including the industrial accident compensation insurance and the industrial accident compensation insurance) as compensation and criminal compensation on October 18, 2014. In addition, the Cheongjin-gun Forestry Cooperatives paid 322,510,890 won to the Plaintiffs. KRW 322,510,890 paid to the Plaintiffs. The amount of KRW 322,510,890 paid to the instant association to the Plaintiffs should be deducted from the Defendant’s damages amount much more than the sum of the damages the Plaintiffs claimed to the Defendant, and the Defendant does not have any money claimed to the Plaintiffs.

B. Determination by issue

1) Defendant’s negligence and existence of responsibility for the occurrence of the instant accident

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the above facts and arguments, the defendant has a duty of care to prevent damage to the civilian due to mines by safely managing mines near the site of the accident in this case, but the defendant's negligence is also recognized as well, and the defendant's negligence has contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case. (A) Article 7 (1) of the Act on the Use and Transfer of Specific Martial Weapons, such as mine mines, provides that the head of the military unit having jurisdiction over the area where the damage to the civilian due to mines may be caused by mines (hereinafter referred to as "mining area") shall install a boundary mark meeting the requirements of the attached Table in the vicinity of the mine area, but such boundary mark has not been installed at the site of the accident in this case.

B) As a result of detection of explosives such as mines with a focus on the instant accident site, it was confirmed that 300 square meters were laid underground. The Defendant: (a) obstructed a mine area into the primary steel network; and (b) prevented civilians from approaching by installing a secondary steel network at a distance of 200 to 500 meters from the primary steel network in consideration of the risks of mine loss; (c) however, a large number of mines were laid away as the site of the instant accident that deviates from the primary steel network; and (d) the Defendant was able to recognize the possibility of being laid away as above, and installed a boundary mark or left it alone without removing it.

C) Since the Defendant was aware of the victims’ entry into the territorial sea for the purpose of livering operations, the victims did not have been warneded that they should not have access to the mine located in the back of the military unit, but did not. Furthermore, the victims did not prevent access to the mine area through the above part while the victims were leaving the steel chain of the back of the military unit leading to the mine as they were left away.

2) Establishment of joint tort

In the establishment of a joint tort, it is sufficient that there is a common intention or common perception between the joint tortfeasor and there is an objective common relation to each act, so if damages were incurred by the related joint act, the liability for damages can not be exempted.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and 10 through 14 above, the association of this case, in relation to the occurrence of the accident of this case, shall have a field manager responsible for managing and supervising human beings at the work site where the accident of this case occurred, and shall not take such measures in consultation with the military unit in the near work site of the military unit, and shall violate the duty of care by failing to prevent the risk factors such as the mine ground, etc. from working at the near work site of the military unit, as stated in the design review report, and shall not include the white forest of the forest office of the designing company in the work site of this case. Despite the duty of care in selecting the work site, the forest engineer of this case violated the duty of care so that the forest engineer of this case is not included in the work site of the mine area and other dangerous areas such as the mine area laid underground after consultation with the military unit, the green technology team of the forest office of this case is recognized as having been in violation of the duty of care of each of the forest association of this case.

On the other hand, the following facts acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above are as follows. When the victims escape from the military base (1) (1) of the intelligence officer, the victims were notified of the intelligence officer, and it was known that the information officer will work in the vicinity of the mine area and the mine area and the mine area, but the military unit will work in the vicinity of the accident site without notifying the military unit of this case, and the accident of this case occurred while carrying out the work near the accident site. The area where the project of this case was carried out is the mine area and its surrounding area and its surrounding area, and there is a possibility of safety accident or risk of accident. In particular, on the day of the accident of this case, the victims et al. were engaged in the work gradually in order at a lower slope than the front slope of the above camping military unit, which is the area where the work of this case was carried out, and there were considerable circumstances such as the occurrence of potential damage related to the accident of this case, including the defendant's liability for damages, in calculating the risk of the accident of the disaster of this case.

4) In principle, the period of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis. The period of time for calculating the amount of damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but the amount less than the last month and less than the cost shall be discarded, and the present rate of the damages shall be calculated at the time of the accident, based on the method of deducting the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount of damages of victims exceeding the amount of damages calculated as follows

B) The damages suffered by the deceased and their bereaved family members due to the instant accident are as follows.

(1) Net ○○○○ (the details of calculation shall be as shown in the annexed table for calculation of damages: 244, 254, and 054 won: Damages after limitation of liability: 195, 403, 243 won (daily income x 80%).

- The consolation money: 40 million won

- Total amount of KRW 235, 403, 243 ( = 195, 403, 243 + 40,000,00)

② The Plaintiffs: The expenditure of KRW 5,00,000 for funeral expenses, shall be divided according to each inheritance ratio ( Plaintiff SongA: 3/7, Plaintiff ChoiB, and LCC: 2/7).

Plaintiff SongA: 2,142,857 Won

Plaintiff LB, LCC: damages after limitation of liability of KRW 1,428,571: Plaintiff Song-A: 1,714,285 won ( = 2,142,857 x 80%)

Plaintiff LB, LCC: each 1,142,856 won ( = 1,428,571 X80%)

- The plaintiffs' consolation money

Plaintiff SongA: 10,00,000 won

Plaintiff LB, LCC: each 6,000,000 won

- Total (Funeral Funeral Expenses + Compensation: Plaintiff Song-A: KRW 11,714,285 ( = 1,714, 285 + 10,00,00) Plaintiff ChoiB, LCC: each of 7,142,856 ( = 1,142,856 + 6,000,000) Plaintiffs’ heir as the deceased’s heir, and the amount inherited by inheritance of KRW 235,403,243 of the deceased’s damages claim is added to the amount of the Plaintiffs’ unique damage claim, as follows:

Plaintiff SongA: 112, 601, 389 won ( = 235, 403, X 3/7 + 11, 714, 285) Plaintiff LB, LCC: each of 74,400,925 won ( = 235,403, 243 X 2/7 + 6, 99, 999) was discharged from the Defendant’s obligation due to the payment of the agreed amount. As seen earlier, the instant association and the Defendant Republic of Korea provided the cause of contribution to the instant accident. The Defendant Republic of Korea’s liability for damages arising from the instant accident to the Deceased and the Plaintiffs is a joint joint and several liability. Accordingly, one of them has the effect of joint and several liability obligations owed by the Defendant to the other debtor having a relationship of vicarious and several liability.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s obligation to compensate for the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident is KRW 261,17,527 (112, 601, 389 + 74, 400, 925 X2). The amount paid to the Plaintiffs according to the instant agreement by the instant association, which is in a relationship between the Defendant and the quasi-joint and several liability provider, is 322,510,89,000 won after deducting the industrial accident insurance money as seen earlier, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to compensate for damages within the scope of the payment of the said agreed amount ought to be deemed to have expired in full.

The plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendant is not affected by this agreement. Since the plaintiffs' negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case, even if they received money in accordance with the agreement of this case, the plaintiffs' damages liability is not extinguished due to the repayment of the defendant's damages. Thus, the union of this case and the plaintiffs' claim that "3. legal inheritors' objection or criminal objection against Gap and path-gun Office, and other organizations outside Incheon Metropolitan City, as special agreement of this case, are irrelevant to this agreement, and they do not participate in the agreement of this case, the effect of this agreement is limited to between the parties to the contract, and it does not affect the conclusion that other joint tort including the defendant who did not participate in the agreement of this case, the effect of the joint exemption of the payment of the damages of this case does not affect the conclusion of the agreement of this case, and the issue of the plaintiffs' claim for damages that occurred after the payment of the damages of this case is not affected by the agreement of this case, as the special agreement of one joint tortfeasor, which is not affected by the agreement of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the plaintiffs' damage claim against the defendant against the defendant was extinguished by the union of this case, which is in a joint and several liability relationship with the defendant as joint and several obligors, by paying the full amount of the claim, and all of them were extinguished by joint and several liability. Therefore, despite the agreement, the plaintiff's claim of this case is invalid.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yu Young-il