The duty of care of drivers on an expressway;

A person who drives on an expressway at an rapid speed of various vehicles, and the upper and lower along the parallel are operating on the upper and lower parallel on the expressway divided into the median line, and it is difficult to expect that the express buses go beyond the median line in the central separation zone and go beyond the median line, and cannot impose a duty of care on drivers driving on the expressway to anticipate and drive the aforementioned facts.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Dongyang High Speed Transportation Corporation

Seoul Central District Court (76Gahap2939) in the first instance trial

1. Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 in excess of the payment order in the following paragraphs shall be revoked, and the plaintiff 1's claim on this revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 17,896,765 won and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from June 8, 1976 to the date of full payment.

3. The appeal by the plaintiff 1, the remaining appeal by the defendant against the plaintiff 1, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff 1 are dismissed, respectively.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant shall be divided into three parts: the plaintiff 1 and the remaining defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff 1 and the remaining defendant, and the costs of appeal against the other plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendant.

5. The portion (excluding the portion revoked in the original judgment) on which the provisional execution has not been sentenced on account of the original judgment in the original judgment in Section 1 of the original judgment may be provisionally executed;

The defendant shall pay 32,61,292 won to the plaintiff 1, 500,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 3,4,5, and 6 respectively, and 300,000 won to the plaintiff 3,00,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from June 8, 1976 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

The part against plaintiff 1 in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 5,084,954 won and the amount of 5% per annum from June 8, 1976 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(A) Comprehensively taking account of Nonparty 1’s testimony, the result of the court’s examination of the criminal records and the purport of the parties’ arguments, Nonparty 1’s (vehicle number 1 omitted), Nonparty 2, the driver of the Defendant Company, at around 21:30 on June 7, 1976, operated the above express bus at the speed of about 80 km in Seoul, while driving the light bus down on the bus at the speed of about 10 km in the speed of the city. Nonparty 3’s (vehicle number 2 omitted) driving of the above passenger bus at about 22.5 km in front of Sungnam-dong Seoul, without any dispute over the owner’s 1’s own bus operation, the Defendant was not liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s 3 driver’s (vehicle number 1 omitted), and it was found that Nonparty 1’s vehicle was parked by the owner of the above passenger bus at a point of 20 meters prior to the mobilization of Sungnam-dong, and that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked at the speed of 25 meters above.

(B) However, after the accident of this case, the defendant agreed to compensate the victims who were aboard their respective bus after the accident of this case between Hanjin Co., Ltd. and the defendant Co., Ltd., to which the plaintiff 1 belongs, respectively, for the damages of the victims who were aboard their respective bus, and thus, it is not possible to accept the plaintiffs' request of this case. However, in this case where there is no assertion that the plaintiffs and the defendant Co., Ltd. agreed not to hold the plaintiffs liable for the damages caused by the accident of this case against the defendant, the above facts of the defendant's assertion do not constitute a ground for rejecting the plaintiffs' request

(C) In addition, the plaintiff 1, who is a driver of Han-jin Bus Co., Ltd., was unable to look well at the remaining overtaking ahead of the vehicle which had been driven at about 40 to 50 meters prior to the accident at the time of the accident, which led to the occurrence of the accident, without finding out that the express bus belonging to the defendant company proceeds at a distance of 40 meters from the speed of 35 to the speed of 40 meters prior to the speed of the central separation zone, and operated at a speed of 80 km speed above the speed of speed of 60 km, which led to the occurrence of the accident. The plaintiff 1's negligence is not believed to be considered in determining the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant, and it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff 1's testimony of the witness at the trial and the witness at the trial of the court of the court below, among the testimony at the court of the court below, had some of the above fact that the above accident had not been driven by the defendant's duty of care, which is separated from the central expressway, and it is difficult to the two main.

2. Scope of damages.

(i)the cost of treatment;

According to the result of the appraisal by the appraiser non-party 5 of the court below, the plaintiff 1 was subject to the treatment of the physical appraisal of the plaintiff 1 for 90 days from October 26, 1976 to the left-hand side of the disability caused by the accident, which is the physical appraisal date of the plaintiff 1, but it can be recognized that the amount of 180,000 won is required for the sum of 2,00 won per day as the treatment expenses.

(b) Daily income.

( ) 위 갑 제1호증의 1, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증의 1,2(간이생명표 표지 및 내용)의 각 기재에 의하면, 원고 1은 1939.7.9.생으로 사고 당시 36년 11월된 건강한 남자였으며, 그 나이의 한국인 남자의 평균 여명은 35.556년이므로 적어도 72세까지는 생존할 수 있으리라는 사실을 인정할 수 있고 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제4호증의 1,2, 동 제9호증의 1,2(각 건설물가표지 및 내용), 동 제5호증(사실증명원), 동 제7호증(단체협약서), 동 제8호증(전직증명서)의 각 기재에 원심증인 소외 6의 증언 및 원심 감정인 소외 5의 감정결과와 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고 1은 소외 주식회사 한진소속 고속버스 운전사로 1971.9.8.에 입사하여 종사하던중 이건 사고로 위 설시와 같은 상해를 입고 운전사로서의 노동능력 약 80퍼센트를 상실하고 고속버스는 물론 일반버스 운전사로서는 부적격자가 되어 1977.6.8. 위 소외 회사를 퇴직하였고, 도시 일용노동 능력 또한 약 30퍼센트 상실한 사실(당심 감정인 소외 7의 감정결과는 믿지 아니한다), 위 소외 회사의 운전사의 정년은 50세이고 사고 당시 동 원고의 평균임금(상여금을 포함함)은 1일 금 6,819원 96전이고 도시 일용노동 임금은 1일 금 1,550원, 이건 변론종결당시의 일반버스 운전사 노임은 1일 금 3,200원이고 도시 일용노동 임금은 1일 금 2,500원인 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 일반버스 운전 및 도시 일용노동은 만 55세가 끝날때 까지 매달 25일간 일할 수 있음은 경험칙상 명백하므로(일반버스 운전사의 가동연한은 원고 청구하는 바에 따름), 동 원고는 고속버스 운전사 정년인 50세까지 145개월간 매달 금 207,440원(6,819원 96전×365÷12, 원미만 버림)의 고속버스 운전사로서의 얻을 수 있는 수입을 순차 상실하였다 할 것이나, 한편 도시 일용노동에 종사하여 매달 그 잔여 보유 노동력에 따른 금 27,125원(1,550원×25×70/100)의 수입을 얻을 것이 기대되므로 고속버스 운전사로서의 일실 수입에서 이를 공제하면, 동 원고는 매달 금 180,315원(207,440원-27,125원)의 수입을 동 원고가 퇴직한 날 다음인 1977.6.9.부터 정년인 50세가 도달하는 날인 1989.7.8.까지 145개월간 순차로 상실하였다 할 것이고, 고속버스 운전사로서의 정년 퇴직후 동 원고는 이건 사고만 없었더라면 특단의 사정이 없는 한 적어도 일반버스 운전사로 종사하여 만 55세가 끝날때까지 72개월간은 매달 금 80,000원(3,200원×25)의 일반버스 운전사로소의 얻을 수 있는 수입을 순차 상실하였다 할 것이나, 한편 위 같은 기간에 도시 일용노동에 종사하여 매달 그 잔여 보유 노동능력에 따른 금 43,750원(2,500×25×70/100)의 수입을 얻을 것이 기대되므로 일반버스 운전사로서의 일실 수입에서 이를 공제하면, 동 원고는 매달 금 36,250원(80,000원-43,750원)의 수입을 순차 상실한 셈인데, 위 두가지 수입 상실액을 이건 사고 당시를 기준으로 월 5/12푼의 중간이자를 공제하는 호프만식 계산법에 따라 계산한 현가는 고속버스 운전사로서의 소입 상실액이 금 19,637,746원{180,315원×(120.5938 : 157월수치 -11.6858 : 12월 수치), 원 미만 버림}이고 일반버스 운전사로서의 수입 상실액은 금 1,448,318원{36,250원×(160.5474 : 229월수치-120.5938 : 157월 수치),원미만 버림} 이어서 수입 상실액은 합계 금 21,086,014원(19,637,746원+1,448,318원)임이 계산상 명백하다.

(C) A daily retirement allowance;

Plaintiff 1 was employed by Han-jin Co., Ltd. on September 8, 1971 and retired on June 8, 197, and his average wage of 6,819 won per day at the time of the accident was recognized as above, and if the accident did not exist, the Plaintiff continued to be employed for 12 years until he reached the age of 50,00 retirement age for high-speed bus drivers of the above company, barring special circumstances, and the Plaintiff was employed for 19 years until he reached the age of 50,000, the retirement age of 1989.7.8, the retirement age of 1989, and the amount equivalent to the average wage of 30 days for 1 year of continuous employment under Article 28 of the Labor Standards Act can be paid as retirement allowance. However, it is obvious that the Plaintiff claimed as at the time of the accident that the amount was less than 50 percent of total annual wage 】 196,1985 won (the amount shall be calculated as retirement allowance of 196,15059.15

(d) Benefit deductions;

The total amount of the lost income and the total amount of the lost retirement pay suffered by Plaintiff 1 is KRW 22,90,559 (21,086,014 + 1,814,545) in total, or the Plaintiff is a temporary disability compensation benefit with the nature of compensation after the accident, and KRW 1,465,17 in total, KRW 3,818,617 as disability benefits, and KRW 5,283,794 in total, as disability benefits, was paid from the office of the Seoul Central District Office of Labor, Seoul, and the Defendant is entitled to deduct the above amount from the total amount of the actual income and the total amount of the lost retirement pay. Accordingly, if the amount is deducted from the total amount of the total amount of the lost income and the total amount of the lost retirement pay, it would be KRW 17,616,765 (22,90,590,59-5,283,794) in total.

However, the defendant asserts that the amount of medical care benefits of KRW 1,458,942 that the plaintiff 1 received from the Seoul Central District Office of Labor shall be deducted from the above amount of damages. However, this case does not claim medical care costs during the period of the medical care, and the above medical care benefits were paid to the rehabilitation center that was in charge of the plaintiff's medical care and were required as medical care costs. Thus, the defendant's argument on this part is not accepted, since it is not money of the nature that should be deducted from the amount of damages

(2) Consolation money

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the rest of the plaintiffs 1 and 1, who are victims, were suffering from mental pain due to the plaintiff 1's accident, the defendant is obligated to give the mental pain to money. Considering the background of the accident in this case, the degree of injury, the plaintiffs' personal relationship and other various circumstances shown in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to pay 10,000 won to the plaintiffs 1 and 50,000 won to the rest of the plaintiffs.

(3) Ultimately, the Defendant is liable to compensate Plaintiff 1 for damages arising from the instant accident, which is the sum of KRW 17,896,765 (180,00 + 17,616,765 + 100,000). The Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the Defendant’s (vehicle No. 1 omitted) passenger treatment expenses of express buses belonging to the Defendant Company due to the instant accident, which is KRW 9,152,279, 11,005,000, 17,03,378, 378, and 17,000,000 won for repair expenses of the express bus belonging to the Defendant Company, but it cannot be accepted as the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the remainder of the damages incurred by the Defendant to the Defendant, as it did not have any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s damages incurred by the Defendant, as it constitutes a set-off against the Defendant’s damages against the said Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 1 17,616,765 won in total of 17,896,765 won in damages such as water treatment expenses and retirement allowances, and 17,896,765 won in total of 100,000 won in consolation money, and 17,896,765 won in consolation money, 2,3,4,5,600 won in consolation money, and 50,000 won in consolation money, and damages for delay in accordance with the Civil Act from June 8, 1976 to each full payment date, for which the plaintiff 2,3,4,5,60 won in the original judgment is liable to pay damages for delay in accordance with the rate of 5% in accordance with the Civil Act. Since the plaintiff 1's appeal against the above plaintiff 2 is dismissed in accordance with the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff 9's appeal against the above plaintiff 1 is dismissed in part as to the remainder of the above plaintiff 9's appeal and the above decision.

Judges Lee Byung-su (Presiding Judge)