2012 Ghana 4809. Confirmation of the existence of an obligation

2012 grouped 6652 (Counterclaim) Damages (i.e., one)

1. A;

2. B

[Judgment of the court below]

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Maritimeian, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jong-chul, Kim Jong-chul, limited amusement

April 19, 2013

May 24, 2013

1. In relation to the traffic accident listed in the separate sheet, it is confirmed that there is no part exceeding the amount specified in paragraph 2 below among the obligation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to pay damages to Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid to each of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) 19, 475, 031 won, and 5% per annum from November 4, 2010 to May 24, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remaining main claim and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s remaining counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

It is confirmed that there is no obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter the Plaintiff) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter the Defendant) in relation to the traffic accidents listed in the separate sheet.

Counterclaim: The plaintiffs shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 50, 187, 019 won, and 5% interest per annum from November 4, 2010 to the date this judgment is rendered, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 2010: (a) around 35, 2010, Plaintiff B operated an automobile owned by Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) from the first lane in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-do, U.S., U.S. (hereinafter “A”) and caused an accident in which Plaintiff B was faced with the vehicle running ahead of it (hereinafter “the first accident”).

B. The defendant is driving Oral Seaba (hereinafter referred to as Defendant Oral Seaba) in two-lanes of the above Abaco.

In the middle of an accident, the vehicle was changed to a one-lane, and the vehicle of the Plaintiff, which was stopped and stopped, did not avoid being faced, and the collision with the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”). The instant accident occurred more than three minutes after the first accident.

C. The Defendant suffered injury, such as a pelle of the left-hand section of the instant accident, and a pelle of the executive pelverization (a laver), etc.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. Party’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the plaintiff did not assume the responsibility of the plaintiff since the accident of this case occurred due to negligence, such as negligence in Jeonju-si, even though he took sufficient measures to prevent the second accident resulting from the second accident after the first accident.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not take sufficient measures to prevent the second accident after the first accident, and that the accident of this case occurred, and thus, he is obligated to share the damages.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is questionable whether the Plaintiff, as a joint operator of the Automobile Accident Compensation Security Act, sent several signals to prevent the second accident with the victim of the first accident, and led the second accident in light of the characteristics of the road at the point of the accident, etc., although the Plaintiff, after the first accident, sent several signals to prevent the second accident with the victim of the second accident, and led the latter vehicle to avoid the accident in light of the following facts: (a) the first accident was caused by a sudden stop of the preceding vehicle; (b) the first accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to secure the safety distance; and (c) the Plaintiff, after the first accident, sent several signals to prevent the second accident with the victim of the second accident; and (d) there was a sufficient distance to avoid the accident from the standpoint of the latter vehicle from the standpoint of the road at the point of the accident; and (d) even if it was not a motorway or an expressway, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiffs as a joint operator of the vehicle in this case.

C. Limitation on liability

However, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident, such as the fact that the Plaintiff took measures to prevent the secondary accident after the first accident, and the Defendant driving a two-lane or a first-lane where the Plaintiff did not drive in the Republic of Korea, and caused the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s responsibility is limited to 30%.

3. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements as to the plaintiff's damages, it is identical to the statement of the calculation of damages in the attached sheet of the amount of compensation (in accordance with the headmanial calculation method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, and in accordance with the headmanial calculation method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 12/12 per month, less than the month for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated by including the monthly income before the interim interest deduction in the direction that the monthly income before the deduction is low, and less than the cost shall be included) and it shall be rejected that the plaintiff's assertion

(a) Actual income;

(1) Personal information: To be stated in the column for calculation of damages in attached Form (basic matters).

(2) Income and operating period

(A) By April 22, 2016, the application of the daily wage of an ordinary urban person (the Defendant asserts that, insofar as the actual income of the Plaintiff is less than the above daily wage, it shall be based on the calculation of the actual income. However, in such a case, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to calculate the daily income on the basis of the daily wage, and no special circumstance exists to apply otherwise).

(3) Calculation: as shown in the separate sheet of calculation of damages [actual earnings] (in addition, from October 31, 201 to November 4, 2011, the rate of loss of labor ability shall be applied to 24% in consideration of the following: (a) although additional hospitalization was made from October 31, 201 to November 4, 2011, the rate of loss of labor ability shall be applied to 34% in consideration of the fact that a considerable period has elapsed from the date of the accident

(b) Costs of purchasing Written Medical Costs, future medical costs, and auxiliary equipment: as stated in the corresponding column of the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation for Damages (the interim amount of medical costs can not be specified and as of the closing date of pleadings).

(e) Repair expenses for ozones;

According to the evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 11-1 and No. 11-2, it can be recognized that the repair cost of defendant Oral Ba was 1.4 million won, and the value was 1.3 million won, and it is recognized that the value was 1.3 million won, the value was 1.3 million won.

(f) Set-off of negligence: 70% (see paragraph (2));

(e) Condolence money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: The Plaintiff’s age, family relation, gender, occupation, background of the instant accident, degree of negligence by the Plaintiff, degree and degree of injury by the Plaintiff, and all other circumstances shown in the pleadings.

(2) Amount recognized: 9 million won

[Ground of recognition] Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1 through 24, Eul evidence Nos. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence No. 10, results of physical examination of the Director of the D Hospital, conclusion that conclusion is 4.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of 19,475,031 won (property damage 10,475, 031 won + solatium 19 million won) to each defendant from November 4, 2010, the date of the accident, which is the date of the accident, to May 24, 2013, the date of the decision that the dispute over the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to pay damages for delay is 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Since the plaintiff's obligation to pay damages for delay against the defendant due to the accident in this case does not exist in excess of the above amount, the plaintiff's main claim for counterclaim and the defendant's claim for counterclaim are accepted within the scope of each of the above grounds for recognition, and the remaining claim for counterclaim and counterclaim are dismissed as they are without merit.

For the remaining judge

- Appendix -