Claim for passive damages and consolation money and whether medical care benefits are deducted;

In a case where the plaintiff did not claim medical expenses, which are affirmative damages, the medical care benefits are not deductible from other damages of the plaintiff.

Articles 9-3 and 11 of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (76Gahap2616) in the first instance trial

Among the parts against the plaintiff 1 in the original judgment, the part dismissing the above plaintiff's claim as stated in the following paragraphs shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the above plaintiff 3,680,156 won with an annual amount of 5% from October 22, 1975 to the full payment system.

The remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and the remainder shall be borne by the above plaintiff, the defendant, and the remaining costs of appeal between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 9,676,722 won to the plaintiff 1, 100,00 won to the plaintiff 2, and 50,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs, and 50,000 won to each of them, and 5% per annum from October 22, 1975 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of execution

Plaintiff 1: Revocation of the part against Plaintiff 1 in the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the same plaintiff an amount of KRW 8,849,645 with an annual rate of 5% from October 22, 1975 to the full payment system.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Liability for Damages

In light of the above evidence evidence Nos. 4 (L. 10), evidence Nos. 10 (Examination of Evidence against Non-Party 1), evidence Nos. 3 (Examination of Evidence) which can be established by Non-Party 2's testimony, and evidence Nos. 9 ( photographs) are combined with all purport of the above witness's testimony at the court below and the court below's trial and party pleading, the plaintiff 1, a major of Non-Party 1, who belongs to the above company, did not own the above company's supervision and did not use it at the same time with non-party 1's direction of supply and demand of non-party 1, 1975, and the above non-party 4's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's.

Thus, this accident is caused by the defect in the installation and preservation of the chip, which is a structure owned by the defendant and possessed by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate the above plaintiff 1 for the damages caused by the accident to the plaintiff 1's wife, her children and mother, and other plaintiffs who can know that he is the plaintiff 1 is the above plaintiff 1 and the above plaintiff 1 is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the accident. On the other hand, since the plaintiff 1 was negligent as seen above, it shall be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant.

2. Damages;

(a) passive damage;

The above evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (Simplified Life Table), evidence Nos. 5 (Application for Disease Certification), and evidence Nos. 6 (Insurance Benefit Payment Certificate), and evidence Nos. 8-1,2 (Construction Product A) of the above evidence are combined with the physical appraisal result of Non-party 5's appraiser and the whole purport of oral argument in the court below. The plaintiff 1 was a male under the age of 38 years and 35.5 years in Korea at the time of the instant accident, and the average male life of 38 years in Korea at the age of 1937.5. The above plaintiff was unable to work as a major due to this case's injury, and his labor ability as an urban ordinary worker was lost to approximately 70 percent, which was the average wage of 3,00 won at the time of this case's accident, and he can be found otherwise by the empirical rule that he was employed by the time of 50 days in May, 195.

According to the above facts, if the above plaintiff had not been involved in the accident, at least 50 months until 55 months of the above plaintiff's major, 91,250 won (3,00 x 365/12) monthly wage of 91,250 won (3,00 x 365/12), 161 won as income tax under the tax-related Acts at the time, 87,542 won after deducting 32 won from the above 30,000 won, 67,542 won as income amount, 60,000 won as income amount for 30,000 won as above, 67,542 won as income amount for 30,000 won as income amount for 30,000 won as above, 10,875 won per month as urban workers x 75,000 won as income amount for 65,000 won (67,070,000 won).

In addition, the Defendant asserts that the above Plaintiff should be deducted from the amount of 3,337,530 won since the Defendant paid medical care benefits to the above Plaintiff. However, even if such money was paid by the Defendant, in this case where the above Plaintiff did not claim medical expenses, which are active damages, the medical care benefits should not be deducted from other damages of the above Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

(b) Mental damage;

The reason why a member should decide on the consolation money portion is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment in the original judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 4,307,233 and consolation money of 200,000 won to the plaintiff 4,507,233, 100, and consolation money of 50,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs, and 50,000 won respectively to the other plaintiffs, as requested by the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs seek, 50,000 won, respectively, and 50,000 won to pay 5% interest per annum from October 22, 1975 to full payment, the following month after the accident occurred. Thus, the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 et al. al. al. cite this claim within the above recognized scope, and 1's claim for this case is justified within the above recognized scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed. Accordingly, the part concerning the plaintiff 1's appeal against the plaintiff 9 and 1's provisional execution is revoked by applying Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act to the above part of the defendant's appeal as to the above plaintiff 9.

Judges Kim Dal-sik (Presiding Judge)