Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong-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)

September 29, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,940,586,366 won with 5% per annum from April 15, 2002 to October 27, 2006, and 20% per annum from October 28, 2006 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 70% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,586,223,874 won with 6% interest per annum from April 15, 2002 to March 29, 2004, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a corporation 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 No. 129 (hereinafter referred to as "aircraft of this case"), and the deceased non-party 1 and his children, the deceased non-party 3, 4 (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1, 3, and 4") entered into an air transport contract between the defendant and the People's Republic of China with the country of China for departure and the place of destination to Busan, and the person boarding the aircraft of this case.

B. On April 15, 2002, the aircraft of this case started with Vietnam on 08:40 China and tried to land at the port of Kim Sea in the Republic of Korea at around 11:23 on the same day. In the event that an aircraft makes a flight on board with a strong wind intensity of the wind, if the runway does not appear on the ground, the aircraft shall immediately stop the flight and raise the altitude. However, even though the aircraft continues a flight on board as soon as possible, the aircraft fell at the end of the 18R speed from the 18R end of the runway, which is 4.6 km from Kimhae-si, Kimhae-dong located in the airport of Kim-do (hereinafter referred to as the “accident of this case”).

C. The deceased and the deceased, the father of the deceased 3 and 4, and the deceased non-party 7 and the deceased non-party 8 and 9, both of whom were the parents of the deceased non-party 7, were killed due to the instant accident. The plaintiff, as the mother of the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 3 and 4, succeeded to the deceased's property independently (the deceased non-party 1's father and the deceased non-party 3 and 4's non-party 10, the deceased non-party 10 had already died on December 14, 198).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, evidence 3-1 to 3, and evidence 15, 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 October 28, 1967, Korea joined 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 referred to as the "Warsaw Convention"), and promulgated it on October 11, 1967 as the Treaty No. 2599 on October 11, 1967. Accordingly, the Warsaw Convention became effective as it was amended by the Hague Protocol (hereinafter referred to as the "Revised Warsaw Convention"), and as regards legal relations pertaining to international carriage by air, it has a position to preferentially apply the special law on civil law as a general law (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1372, Jul. 22, 1986). In addition, the Warsaw Convention became the Hague Protocol as soon as a member of the People's Republic of China did not join the War Convention (see Supreme Court Decision 82Da1372, Jul. 22, 1986).

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.

Therefore, 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 People's Republic of China and to the place of destination Busan, the Warsaw Convention is amended 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 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 shall be liable for compensation under the terms and conditions of the amended Warsaw Convention, as well as the damages suffered by the plaintiff, while on board the aircraft of this case due to non-performance of obligation under the above transport contract of this case.

3. Whether liability for damages is limited.

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that Article 22 (1) of the Warsaw Convention is limited to the amount of the carrier's liability for each passenger in the carriage of passengers, and that the defendant's liability is limited to the amount of the carrier's liability for each passenger. Thus, the defendant's liability should be limited to the amount of the above limitation of liability.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts 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 Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dogg Dogg Dogg Dogg Doggg Doggg Doggg Doggggg Dogggg Doggg Dogg., the provision on limitation of liability of

(b) the relevant regulations;

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

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

C. Specific details of the instant accident

Thus, we will examine the specific circumstances of the instant accident in order to determine whether the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s act with the awareness that the Defendant’s employees or agents would have caused damage with intent to harm within the scope of their duties or with the awareness that 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 Article 4.7 of the International Civil Aviation Organization's "Aircraft Operation Process 8168-OPS/611" and Articles 30 and 77 of the People's Republic of China's Civil Aviation Decree (hereinafter "Civil Aviation Decree") of the International Civil Aviation Organization (hereinafter "International Civil Aviation Organization") provide that a pilot approaching a vessel shall fly within the zone of access to the aircraft only when the runway or its surrounding circumstances can be continuously identified within the zone of access to the aircraft in question when the pilot's land is in a situation where the runway or its surrounding circumstances cannot be identified into the land.

(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 operated at the right-hand side at the right-to-way flight, it is difficult for him to confirm the runway at the right-hand side, so the pilot of the right-to-side side to confirm the passage time of the runway, the accurate time measurement for the three lines, the location of the runway and the reference materials on the ground and give advice to the captain,

(C) According to the Defendant’s flag training pocket book, the vessel access process is measured in the direction of automatic flight equipment (hereinafter referred to as “A/P”), Auto Trotle (hereinafter referred to as “A/T”), and Fl rights DNA (hereinafter referred to as “F/D”), when the clater uses the automatic flight device (hereinafter referred to as “LOC”), the clctic clock is called “LOC”; the vertical clock is called “V”; the vertical click starts using the 36rd speed of the runway; the 36rd direction of the runway; the 36rd direction of the runway; the 4rd direction of the clive clock is measured in the direction of the 36rd direction of the runway; the 36th direction of the clunch and the 36th direction of the clunch landing along the runway; the 36th direction of the clunch and the 5th direction of the clun landing.

(D) In the training manual of Bolar, the manufacturer of the aircraft of this case, the minimum meteorological value related to the speed of visible prior access. Of access, fraps may be selected at 25 degrees or 30 degrees. Of the approach, the minimum determined height is maintained by using the high-level maintenance frap, and the food or the fladal direction maintenance pid in the part of the prior access. If the prior access is made from the close approach, the prior access is used by the LOC and VNAV or V/S Modles. The reason why the prior access is not recommended to use the prior access (hereinafter referred to as the "APP") at the strong time of the prior access is that the automatic flight device does not need to be used in the same manner as the APP manual, but it does not need to be referred to as the "AP approach" or the reason why the APP approach should not be used in the same way as the APP manual.

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

(A) In accordance with the instructions of the Accesser, the instant aircraft entered the instant aircraft by using LOC and AP Mods when approaching the instant aircraft through a close meter approach in the direction of 36 direction of the runway, and thereafter, conducted a line approach in the direction of 18R of the runway. The minimum limit of the line approach was 700 feet and 3.2 kilometers of the Sindo 3.2 kilometer “C”.

(B) The instant aircraft entered the final access by using LOC Mods in a state where the length direction of the aircraft is 030 degrees. After 7 seconds from the entry into the final access, it was connected to the AP Mods, which is a vertical Mods, not connected with the Glides Slides, and for the demotion, the aircraft used the V/S Mods and FLCH Mods for a river to approximately KRW 1,000 feet, and maintained approximately approximately 700 feet, and used the direction selection Mods for the entry into the course of the ship.

(C) After checking the runway from approximately 1,100 feet to enter the runway, the Aircraft was operated by the first section pilot of the Aircraft, and the first section pilot of the Aircraft expressed his intention to enter the runway and operated the automatic steering system in a swimming way. When deeming that the Aircraft in this case confirmed the runway into the runway, an approach engineer issued a radio frequency change instruction to “Airropona 129, 129, i.e., “Airropo gate, i., cirle gate,” but the flight crew of the Aircraft in this case called “Airrole, cirlele, 18, 129” (the flight crew of the Aircraft in this case did not properly perform the position of the second section pilot of the Aircraft in charge and the first section pilot of the radio frequency control tower at the time when it did not properly perform the direction of the second section pilot and the first section pilot of the Aircraft in charge.

(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. m. to enter the course to the route of the route at a standard rate of 3 m.m. (the first m. m.) and met with a small slope angle (5.3 p.m. 19.9m.) 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 m. m. 11:20 m. (the first m. m.) after the departure of 15 m. m. at the direction of the runway approach to the direction of the m. m. 17 m. p.m.

(E) The instant aircraft, when flying 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, passed through a parallel point with the runway 18R access speed, exceeds the maximum speed of 140 knotss “C” (the speed at which the said aircraft passes through the runway 18R access speed of the runway, 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 "the extension of the right to use Turling," and the part I pilot at 1:20:24, when 22 seconds have passed from the time-hour measurement, referred to as "the first pilot at right to use the first line, and so too late." Therefore, the captain and the part I pilot at right to use the first line at right to use the first line at right to use the third line at right to use the third line at right: 11:20:25 to 11:20:33 at right to use the second line at right to use the first line at right to use the second line at right to use the first line at right to use the second line at right to use the first line at right to use the second line at right to use the second line at right to use the second line at right to use the second line at right to use the second line at right to use the second line at right to use the first 3: 1.

(g) In 11:20:54, the captain requested the vice-captain to "Do to find a runway and call out the runway," but the vice-captain referred to "do to fly" in 11:20:59 without response that visual verification of the runway or ground reference water was made. While the aircraft entered this time, the captain did not immediately take the way and tried to take the way into the runway in the direction of the runway (180 degrees), the captain tried to take the way again to 11:21:02 without mentioning an external situation, the first-class pilot provided the advice that "do to take care of the altitude" and "on the way to 11:21:09, the captain "on the way to 11:21:10 p.m., the second-class pilot "on the way to 12:1:10 p.m., the captain "on the way to 1:21:10 p.m., at the latest, he did not 1:15 p.m.

(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 joined the Defendant on July 1994 and became the captain of the instant aircraft on November 26, 2001. A total of 289 hours to 30 minutes to 767 type captain of the instant aircraft served as the captain of the instant aircraft, but there was no experience of vessel access at the Kimhae-air port. The Defendant conducted a vessel access training for the instant 767 type only for the Vietnam Airport, and did not conduct a separate special training for the relationship that the Kimhae Airport was not classified as a special airport.

(B) The first assistant operator of the instant aircraft was employed by the Defendant on September 1993, and was employed by the assistant operator on January 23, 2002 and performed the first duties as the first assistant operator of the instant aircraft on February 23, 2002. The first assistant operator of the instant aircraft was employed by the Defendant on February 23, 2002, and was employed by the first assistant operator of the instant aircraft on February 23, 2002. The first assistant operator of the Kimhae Airport was employed by the first assistant operator of the instant aircraft on March 3, 200, and was employed by the second two times

(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 conditions in the Kim Sea Airport showed approximately 500 Ecatstered (the state where the volume of the former covers 3/8 to 4/8), Broke (the state where the quantity of the former covers 5/8 to 7/8) in 100 feet, 2,500 feet, and 8/8,000 feet. 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.

(B) When an aircraft enters the top of approximately 700 feet, it could not be seen as the aircraft in the control tower, but could be seen as locked from the west edges of the runway to the middle of the runway. The third point edges of the runway 18R are moving to the north, and the aircraft was covered by a little height of the collision between the aircraft in the mountain area.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

E. Determination

According to the above facts, the captain, etc. of the instant aircraft at the time of the instant case seems to be unable to secure the view of the front side as it passes through the cloud while holding three lines and four lines due to bad weather conditions, and it was impossible to continuously verify the runway. In such a situation, 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 who is in the position of assisting the captain’s duty of care, shall be closely compared with the information that can collect the procedures and conditions according to the vessel approach, and shall prevent the collision by promptly checking the location and route of the accident at the time of the accident and taking prompt procedures, etc.

However, according to the above facts, the captain, etc. of the aircraft of this case, without any question or discussion about the location and route of the aircraft involved in the accident, conducted the meeting without being informed of the minimum landing meteorological value of the large aircraft related to the meeting of the aircraft, and without any smooth communication with the control tower, operated the meeting during the course of the meeting of the runway 18R, in which the communication with the control tower was not smooth, the captain, etc. of the aircraft of this case operated the aircraft of this case with 150 to 160 knots, exceeding the maximum speed of 140 km of the "C" for the owner of the vessel access to the Kimhae Airport in the course of the runway, and did not comply with the rules of the runway at the time of the collision with the view of the 18-mor-160 mpt without any action for correction, and the captain did not actively take any action at the time of the collision with the view of the 18-mort, and did not take any action at the time of the collision with the runway (referring to 18-m.).

If so, 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 in the access and landing of the vessel, the confirmation of continuous visual reference materials, and the timing and proper three times, etc., it is evaluated that the above act of captain, etc. is conducted beyond simple negligence and by recognizing that the damage would occur."

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the captain, etc. caused the accident of this case while operating the aircraft of this case within the scope of his duty, he 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, he is liable to compensate the plaintiff for all damages caused by the accident of this case.

4. Scope of damages.

The amount of lost profit of the deceased is the amount calculated on April 15, 2002, which is calculated on the basis of the following facts, according to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest by 5/12% per month, such as in the separate sheet of calculation of damages:

A. Damage caused by the death of the deceased Nonparty 1

(1) The lost profit; and

(A) Facts of recognition

(1) Gender: Women.

Date of birth: omitted

Age at the time of accident: 36 years of age and 7 months;

Name of rental: 38.93

(2) Occupation and actual income status.

The deceased non-party 1 opened and operated a hospital from around 1992 to around the time of the accident of this case with the trade name "non-party 1 dental clinic".

(3) Degree of import

The plaintiff asserts that the monthly income of the deceased non-party 1 is KRW 44,454,089, based on the net non-party 1's global income return amount in 2001 53,449,068.

Therefore, the evidence as shown in the plaintiff's argument shows the following results: Gap evidence Nos. 4, 26-1 through 3, part of Gap evidence Nos. 6 (excluding the following parts), and non-party 2's certified public accountant belonging to Samsung accounting corporation (the non-party 2 was in an accounting corporation identical to the non-party 5 who was sworn at the examination date for appraiser, but did not take an oath directly after being present at the examination date for appraiser).

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 6, since the income amount reported to the tax office under the name of the deceased non-party 1 from 1998 to 2002 and the income amount therefrom are as listed below, and the income amount reported to the Plaintiff, his bereaved family, after the deceased non-party 1’s death in 2001 and 2002, is about eight times as much as the income amount reported by the deceased non-party 1 from 1998 to 2000, and there is no evidence to support that the deceased non-party 1’s income was extended the scale of the dental hospital’s management or innovative the type of its management to the extent that it can rapidly increase as above before and after 201 (see Supreme Court Decision 7 through 90Da16319, Oct. 16, 200). However, it is difficult to recognize that the number of patients reported by the deceased non-party 1 had increased rapidly due to the expansion of dental clinic’s business and expansion of the scale of employment.

Next, each statement in Gap evidence 26-1 through 3 is based on the trade books, medical fees, etc. prepared by the deceased non-party 1. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that all the amount of treatment described in the medical records in the medical records in the relevant year was actually paid in full. However, according to Gap evidence 26-1, most of the amount of treatment on the medical records in the medical records in the relevant year was paid in cash (360,064,300 out of total 393,772,700 won, total 531,132,200 won, 434,40,300 out of total 531,132,200 won, and 639,368,740 won out of total 639,368,740 won, and the actual cash revenues in the head of a Tong and the head of a tax office are not in a way to confirm, and it is difficult to believe that there is a considerable difference between the report and necessary expenses.

Finally, the part of the appraisal results of Nonparty 2 also include the income details of the deceased Nonparty 1 calculated based on the medical records, card transaction records, health insurance payment details, deposit transaction details, trade books, etc. However, the non-party 2 himself/herself has a considerable limit in the appraisal results due to the difference between the accounting records and evidence subject to appraisal, the discrepancy between the accounting records and evidence, the lack of evidence, and the impossibility of an ambassador with the real financial data, and the amount of the medical examination and treatment table can be actually received, refunded, or omitted intentionally after the medical examination and treatment, and it is stated that the amount of the medical examination and treatment table is based on the presumption for other insufficient materials. Therefore, the above appraisal results also cannot be trust.

Otherwise, the descriptions of Gap evidence 8, 12 through 14, 16 through 19, 24, 25, and 28 through 33 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize the income amount as alleged by the plaintiff.

Thus, the amount of income of the deceased non-party 1 can not be calculated by deducting the contributed amount of capital invested by the deceased non-party 1 on the basis of the income amount in 2000 that was reported before the deceased non-party 1 died. According to the part of the appraisal result of the non-party 2 (excluding the part not believed above), the amount of capital invested by the deceased non-party 1 is 457,046,000 won (=the amount of capital invested by the deceased non-party 1 + the amount of medical device 123,50,000 + the amount of medical device 31,40,000,000 + 31,00,000,000 + the amount of non-product 24,46,000 won + the interest rate of one-year fixed deposit in commercial banks as of the date of the accident in this case, the amount of income of the deceased non-party 1 1 x 10,712,600,400

[Attachment] The reported income amount by the deceased non-party 1

Income amount for the calendar year of 66,379,959, 118,707,492 150,946,700 150,700 533,449,068 2002 435,636,168 202

(unit: source)

(4) Operating period: until August 17, 2030, when he reaches 65 years of age.

(B) Cost of living: 1/3 of the amount of income (based on experience, the plaintiff asserts that the cost of living by the deceased non-party 1 is merely 16.1%, but it is insufficient to recognize each statement of evidence Nos. 27 and 28 alone).

(c) Calculation: 1,510,340,155 won

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

(3) Consolation money

The following shall be determined in consideration of the Plaintiff’s age, family relations, the circumstances and results of the instant accident, and other various circumstances revealed in the oral proceedings of the instant case.

deceased non-party 1: 40,000,000

Plaintiff: 10,000,000 won

(4) The theory of lawsuit

1,563,340,155 won (=the deceased Nonparty 1,550,340,155 won + the plaintiff 13,000,000 won)

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 6 and 13-1 of evidence Nos. 13-1, part of the appraisal result of Nonparty 2 (except for the part not believed in the above), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Damage caused by the death of the deceased Nonparty 3

(1) The lost profit; and

(A) Facts of recognition

(1) Gender: Male

Date of birth: omitted

Age at the time of accident: 5 years of age and 8 months;

Name of rental: 68.96

(2) Job and actual income: 1,215,544 won per month of urban daily wage (=55,252 won x 22 days)

(3) Operating period: From July 22, 2016, when he/she reaches the age of 20 to July 22, 2016, the period of military service plus two years and two months, from September 22, 2018 to July 21, 2056, he/she reaches the age of 60.

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

(c) Calculation: 138,441,466 won;

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

(3) Consolation money

The following shall be determined in consideration of the Plaintiff’s age, family relations, the circumstances and results of the instant accident, and other various circumstances revealed in the oral proceedings of the instant case.

Deceased Nonparty 3: 40,000,000

Plaintiff: 10,000,000 won

(4) The theory of lawsuit

191,441,466 won (i.e., the deceased Nonparty 3178,441,466 won + Plaintiff 13,00,000 won)

[Evidence Evidence] No. 35-1 and No. 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Damage caused by the death of the deceased non-party 4

(1) The lost profit; and

(A) Facts of recognition

(1) Gender: Male

Date of birth: omitted

Age at the time of accident: 3 years of age and 6 months;

Name of rental: 70.91

(2) Job and actual income: 1,215,544 won per month of urban daily wage (=55,252 won x 22 days)

(3) Operating period: From October 2, 2018 to October 2, 2018, the period of military service plus two years and two months, from December 2, 2020 to 60 years of age.

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

(c) Calculation: 132,804,745 won

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

(3) Consolation money

The following shall be determined in consideration of the Plaintiff’s age, family relations, the circumstances and results of the instant accident, and other various circumstances revealed in the oral proceedings of the instant case.

deceased non-party 4: 40,000,000

Plaintiff: 10,000,000 won

(4) The theory of lawsuit

185,804,745 won (i.e., deceased Nonparty 4172,804,745 won + Plaintiff 13,000,000 won)

[Evidence Evidence] No. 35-1 and No. 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) the amount recognized;

1,940,586,366 won (i.e., damage 1,563,340,155 won due to the death of the deceased Nonparty 1 + 191,441,466 won due to the death of the deceased Nonparty 3 + 185,804,745 won due to the death of the deceased Nonparty 4)

F. Sub-committee

As to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 1,940,586,366 won and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 15, 2002, which is the date of the instant accident, to October 27, 2006, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from October 28, 2006 to the date of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Calculation Table of Damages Amount】

Judges Yoon Sung-sung(Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)