Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeongam, Attorneys Orn-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorney misunderstanding and lodging)

Intervenor (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

October 8, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 41,013,897 won with 5% interest per annum from August 17, 2005 to November 4, 2008 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is four minutes, and three of which are the remainder is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Defendant’s part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor, and one of which is the Plaintiff’s part, and the remainder is the Defendant’s Intervenor.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 17,845,572 won with 5% interest per annum from August 17, 2005 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) Around 10:20 on August 17, 2005, Non-party 1 was under the influence of 0.141% (vehicle number 1 omitted) and was under the influence of 0:5%, and was under the influence of Non-party 1, Non-party 1 operated a motor vehicle (vehicle number 1 omitted) and proceeded with a four-lane road in front of the 18-Do 18-Dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City, Seodong-dong, Seoyang-dong, Do 18-do, one of the four-lane roads in front of the 18-do Do 18-gu, New Coina department, and was under the influence of the driver's (vehicle number 2 omitted) with the front part of the above car rental car and the back part of the driver's driver's vehicle's (vehicle number 2 omitted) with the back part of the 1,5000-Gu 1,0000-Gu 1,000.

See The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the foregoing car.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor

(1) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant asserts that if the plaintiff had seen the situation of the passage of the surrounding vehicle, the defendant could have found that the insured vehicle was in an abnormal progress, and that there was an error in neglecting it, and that there was a mistake in failing to wear a safety bell, it should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages against the plaintiff. However, in light of the circumstances of the accident in this case, the defendant did not have a duty to conduct a safe driving in ascertaining the movement of the vehicle behind the previous vehicle, and there was no evidence to prove that the plaintiff failed to wear the safety bell at the time of the accident in this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

【Judgment on the Defendant’s Intervenor’s argument

The defendant assistant intervenor is a doctor operating the ○○ ○○ Mandong surgery and the clinic. On November 8, 2005, the defendant assistant intervenor claimed that, in conducting the surgery of this case with the plaintiff using an internal vision, a thorough disinfection was conducted using high-tension steam sprinke disinfection equipment, etc., and administered an anti-biological medication before and after the surgery. From the date of the surgery to November 30, 2005, the defendant assistant intervenor was judged to have normal conditions in all of the result of the surgery conducted several times to verify whether infection was infected after the surgery. Thus, the defendant assistant intervenor claimed that the plaintiff was not at fault in the occurrence of the communicable infection infection of the plaintiff, and that the infection of the operation was caused within 30 days after the surgery, and that the operation of this case was conducted within 30 days after the surgery, and thus, the plaintiff did not know that the 30th day of the operation of this case was no more than 30 days after the surgery.

Therefore, there is a proximate causal relationship between the expanded damage and the traffic accident, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the symptoms worsen or new symptoms increase due to the medical accident caused by the doctor's negligence in the course of treating the injured victim due to the traffic accident. In this case, traffic accident and the medical accident independently meet the requirements of tort and where it is objectively related and jointly causing damage to the victim, joint tort shall be established (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da32045 delivered on November 24, 1998, etc.). Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant intervenor caused infection infection to the plaintiff due to gross negligence in the course of performing the operation of this case, and the defendant did not have any evidence to prove that there was no gross negligence in the course of performing the operation of this case, and therefore, the defendant bears no further reasonable causal relation with the plaintiff's damage caused by the above infection as a result, regardless of whether the plaintiff's injury was gross negligence in the course of performing the operation of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant's damage compensation liability for this case was not attributable.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1호증, 갑 2호증의 1∽9, 을나 1호증의 1, 2, 을나 3, 4호증의 각 기재, 을나 2호증의 1, 2의 각 영상, 변론의 전취지

2. Scope of damages.

In addition to the following separate statements, all shall be as shown in the attached calculation sheet (Provided, That the amount less than a month for the convenience of calculation shall be included in the side on which the appraised value is less than the won, the amount less than the won shall be discarded, and the current calculation of the damages shall be based on the method of deducting the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.)

(a) Actual income:

(1) Personal information: as stated in the separate sheet of calculation of damages amount.

Domen Occupation, Income, Maximum working age

대한건설협회 발행 ‘건설업임금실태조사보고서’에 나타난 조적공의 시중노임단가에 월 평균 가동일수 22일을 곱한 금액을 기초로 일실수입을 산정한다. 매월 22일씩 만 60세에 이를 때까지 위와 같은 소득을 올릴 수 있는 것으로 본다{원고는, 이 사건 사고 당시 소외 3 주식회사에 근무하면서 월 평균 2,860,000원의 수입을 올리고 있었으므로, 위 월 평균 수입을 기초로 일실수입을 산정하여야 한다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 갑 4호증의 1∽9의 각 기재와 이 법원의 소외 3 주식회사에 대한 사실조회 결과 및 이 법원의 동작세무서장에 대한 과세자료제출명령 결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고가 이 사건 사고 당시 소외 3 주식회사에서 상여금이나 각종 수당없는 일당 130,000원의 조적공으로 근무한 사실, 2005년 6월에는 24일을 근무하여 3,120,000원(24일 × 130,000원)의 수입을, 같은 해 7월에는 26일을 근무하여 3,380,000원(26일 × 130,000원)의 수입을, 같은 해 8월에는 이 사건 사고일까지 12일을 근무하여 1,560,000원(12일 × 130,000원)의 수입을 각 올렸던 사실 등을 각 인정할 수 있으나, 앞서 든 증거들에 의하면, 원고는 일용직으로서 근무한 일수에 따라 임금을 지급받았을 뿐만 아니라 원고가 일한 공사 현장의 공사기간은 2005. 2. 4.부터 2005. 8. 13.일까지이고, 근로계약서 상으로도 근로계약기간이 2005. 12. 31.까지로 한정되어 있었던 사실, 원고에 대한 아무런 과세자료가 없는 사실 등을 각 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면, ‘건설업임금실태조사보고서’에 나타난 조적공의 시중노임단가에 월 평균 가동일수 22일을 곱한 금액을 기초로 원고에 대한 일실수입을 산정함이 상당하므로, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다}.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The term of hospitalization and the rate of loss of labor ability: from August 17, 2005 to July 30, 2007, the period of hospitalization and the rate of loss of labor ability: △△ Hospital; △△ Hospital; △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and respectively, the period of hospitalization and the rate of loss of labor ability shall be 70% in consideration of the degree of contribution to the escape of the estimated signboards, as seen below.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the period of hospitalization should be limited to 6 months since the plaintiff's above period of hospitalization is 23 months for a long period of time. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above 23 months period of hospitalization is appropriate in light of the following reasons: the defendant's argument that the period of hospitalization should be limited to 6 months; thus, it is reasonable to view that the above 23 months period of hospitalization is appropriate in light of the fact that operation, the occurrence of unforeseeable flady

x Sphere disability and loss rate of labor capacity

As a result of the escape from the side of the 5-Woman, the 5-Woman-dong 003, Nov. 8, 2005, the 5-Woman-dong 006, the 5-Woman-dong 006, and the 5-Woman-Woman-Woman-Woman-Woman were to perform the 5-Woman-Woman-Woman-Woman-Woman-Woman-Woon-Woman-Woon-Woman-Woon, but the 5-Woman-Woman-Woman-Woon (hereinafter referred to as the 5-Woman-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Woon-Wo-Wo-Woon-Wo-Wo-Woon-Wo.

㈎ 위 입원기간 종료 후 척추유합술을 받는 날부터 그 치유기간 1개월이 경과된 2009. 1. 31.까지 : 요추부 통증 및 다리의 저림 - 12%, 영구장해(맥브라이드표 척추손상 V-D-1-b의 직업계수 5에 해당하되, 기왕증 기여도 50% 참작)

㈏ 2009. 2. 1.부터 가동기간 종료일까지 : 요추부 척추유합으로 인한 후유장해 - 7%, 영구장해(맥브라이드표 척추손상 V-D-2-a의 직업계수 5에 해당하되, 기왕증 기여도 50% 참작)

㈐ 당사자의 주장 및 판단

The plaintiff asserts that the labor disability loss rate is 24% permanent disability equivalent to 5% vocational coefficient of V-D-1-B of Mabrid verteb, and the defendant is 5% occupational coefficient of Mabrid verteb, where spine verteb is successful, but 50% of the contribution rate is considered as 7%. Thus, in light of the results of physical diagnosis of the head of the Samsung Seoul Hospital at this court and the fact inquiry about the head of the hospital, the plaintiff needs spine vertec. In full view of the whole purport of the arguments, since the plaintiff's labor disability loss rate is 24% permanent disability equivalent to 5% of the above spine verteb, and since the defendant's labor disability loss rate is 5% of the above vertebrate damage rate, 50% of the labor disability's contribution rate is 15% of the above vertebrate damage's occupational contribution rate, 50% of the above vertec.

(v) Level of contribution: 5-1000 per cent of the king escape certificate between the 5-1st century, taking this into account in terms of active and passive damages calculation, loss deduction, etc.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 1호증, 갑 2호증의 1∽12, 갑 3호증, 갑 4호증의 1∽9, 갑 5호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 삼성서울병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁 결과, 같은 병원장에 대한 사실조회 결과, 이 법원의 소외 3 주식회사에 대한 사실조회 결과, 이 법원의 동작세무서장에 대한 과세자료제출명령 결과, 현저한 사실, 경험칙, 변론의 전취지

(b) Expenses for future treatment;

(i) Expenses for vertebrates No. 5-T. 1: 11,00,000 won (as seen in the foregoing, it shall be deemed to have been performed on December 31, 2008 for the convenience of calculation, and one month after the date of completion of the expected treatment is deemed to have been disbursed on January 31, 2009, but such expenses shall be deemed to have been disbursed on January 31, 2009, however, at the present price at the time of the accident in this case).

Shebsing expenses: KRW 4,305,00 (no evidence exists to prove the fact that he had undergone an operation before the date of closing the argument in this case). For the convenience of calculation, it shall be deemed to have been disbursed on the day before the date of closing the argument in this case, and shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of the court's commission of physical appraisal to the Samsung Seoul Hospital Head, the fact inquiry to the same hospital Head, the whole purport of the argument

C. The king king's opening expenses: In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff's injury was caused by corrosion and degree; (b) the internal hydro-copary nuclear removal surgery; (c) the occurrence of the alley infection caused by infection by the operation department; and (d) the fact that he/she undergoes 4-5 in verteculation and 1 in verteculation for 150 days from the date of the instant accident, he/she shall be deemed that one adult woman's nursing was necessary for supporting eating, entering, washing, cleaning, large urinal, moving movement, etc. for 150 days from the date of the instant accident. Since the Plaintiff's address is an urban area at the hospital where hospitalized treatment was conducted, the expenses required therefor is equivalent to urban wage.

[Grounds for recognition] The purport, significant fact, and rule of experience of pleading

(d) Mutual aid:

(1) Of KRW 40,455,820 paid by the Defendant as medical expenses, KRW 20,227,910 equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share of the Plaintiff’s certificate of origin.

【Provisional payment of damages 11,400,000

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Eul's statement of evidence 1, whole purport of oral argument

(e) consolation money;

Considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of this case, such as the Plaintiff’s age, occupation, family relation, circumstance and result of accident, degree of negligence, degree and degree of the disability of the aftermath, and unexpected climatic nuclear removal, the period of hospitalization is prolonged, and the degree of the aftermath disability has deteriorated, etc., it is reasonable to determine KRW 15,00,000 in consideration of all the circumstances indicated in the pleadings of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 41,013,897 won and damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 17, 2005, which is the date of the accident of this case, to November 4, 2008, which is the date of the decision of this case, 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. Thus, the defendant is obligated to partly accept the plaintiff's claim as above.

【Damages Calculation Table omitted】

Judges Lee Jae-hoon