Whether the profit exempted from the duty to support a minor who died of a tort should be deducted from the offsetting of profit and loss in calculating damages.

The benefits that the Plaintiffs, who were their parents, did not pay the support allowance to be paid until the deceased died of a tort, are not generated by the deceased himself, who is the victim, and it is not a set-off of profits and losses.

Article 763 of the Civil Act

65Da2317 decided Jan. 31, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 1541; Supreme Court Decision 763(38)576 Decided Jan. 31, 196

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (64A10088) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount equivalent to 78,585 won and the amount equivalent to 5 percent per annum from September 3, 1964 to the full payment.

All remaining claims of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be five-minutes through the first and second trials, and three-minutes shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

Of the money stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, Plaintiff 1 may provisionally execute the part exceeding KRW 50,000,000, respectively.

The attorney of the plaintiff (Appellant) shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 250,084 won, 140,82 won to the plaintiff 2, and an amount of 5 percent per annum from September 3, 1964 to the full payment system.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

The defendant (Appellant) litigation performer shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The court of first and second instances sought a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the plaintiffs.

According to the testimony of Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, the non-Party 2, who had no dispute over the establishment of the Association Gap 2, Nos. 6 (Judgment), 7 (Examination of Suspects), and 8 (Verification Protocol). According to the testimony of Non-Party 1, the non-Party 2, which is an affiliated agency of the defendant country, is a daylight belonging to the Army Group No. 107 (2+1/2) and has been engaged in driving of the vehicle belonging to the military unit, which is the non-party 1, and the front side of the vehicle is no more than 1,000 square meters prior to the death of the non-party 3 (2+1/2) vehicle belonging to the above Association Headquarters, and the front side of the vehicle is no more than 5 meters prior to the death of the non-party 2 and the front side of the vehicle is no more than 1,000 square meters prior to the death of the non-party 3, who will be on the front side of the vehicle.

Thus, the death of the non-party 4, who is the public official of the defendant, is attributable to the negligence during the performance of official duties of the non-party 2, as well as the defendant's country, as well as to compensate the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the above non-party deceased, for all the mental damage caused by the death of the above non-party 4 and the property damage inflicted on the plaintiff 1, who are the parents of the above non-party 4, are liable to compensate for all the property damage inflicted by the accident. The above non-party 4's right to claim damages caused by the accident is jointly inherited by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant

However, in this accident, the defendant's litigation performer asserts that he was negligent in neglecting the duty of care and custody as a person with parental authority even for the plaintiffs who are the parents of the non-party deceased. However, according to the above opinion, the above non-party deceased's defense cannot be accepted because it is not playing under the side of the store at the time of the accident, and there is no evidence of assertion that the plaintiff's negligence was committed against the plaintiffs.

Then, the amount of damages that the Defendant should pay is considered as follows.

앞에 나온 갑1호증(호적등본)과 성립에 다툼이 없는 같은 3호증(간이생명표)의 각 기재에 의하면 망 소외 4는 이번 사고로 인하여 사망할 당시 만 5세(1959.3.24.)의 여자로서 그 평균여명이 56.12년인 사실을 인정할 수 있으니 위 소외 망인이 이번 사고로 사망하지 않았으면 61세까지 살 수 있고 최소한 성년이 되는 20세부터 55세까지 36년간 노동능력이 있을 것이며 특별한 사정이 없는 한 적어도 식모 정도의 수입을 얻을 수 있을 것임은 경험칙상 쉽게 알 수 있는데 앞에 나온 원심증인 소외 1의 증언(본원이 믿지 아니하는 부분은 뺌)에 의하면 이번 사고 당시 위 소외 망인의 주거지에서 의식주를 제공받는 식모의 평균임금이 월 금 1,000원정도이고 그중 약 500원을 용돈으로 소비하는 사실을 인정할 수 있으니 위 소외 망인은 매월 금 1,000원을 벌어 용돈으로 금 500원씩을 지출하므로써 매년 금 6,000원씩의 순수입을 얻을 수 있었다고 할 것이다.

However, since the plaintiffs seek a lump-sum payment of the above amount, it is clear that there is an interim interest rate of 5% per annum, so the amount of damages that the defendant is entitled to claim a lump-sum payment is calculated in accordance with the Hopman calculation method, and the amount to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs shall be the amount to be paid to the plaintiffs as property damages suffered by the deceased's 4 years in the future until the above non-party 4 reaches the age of 55 years until the non-party 4 reaches the age of 5.21 (6,00 + 6,775 won (24.70 + 401-4094667) from the present value of the pension proceeds of the deceased's 14 years before the non-party 4 reached the age of 50.

Therefore, if the above amount is calculated according to the plaintiffs' shares in inheritance, the plaintiff 1 was 57,170 won and 28,585 won and 7 won.

The defendant 4 asserted that the deceased non-party 4 shall not work after age 5, and therefore, since the income earned before age 55 and the death shall be disbursed as living expenses, the defendant 4 shall deduct 1,500 won per month as the above living expenses, but the above argument shall not be accepted since there are no legal grounds such as the amount to be deducted.

Next, the defendant's litigation performer asserts that the above plaintiffs who inherited the right to claim damages against the defendant of the above non-party deceased died due to the accident, and that the above deceased was exempted from the disbursement of 1,500 won per month of support expenses to be spent as a matter of course to the adult age, that is, the defendant should deduct the plaintiffs' benefits from the amount to be compensated by the defendant. However, as seen above, the plaintiffs' claim is based on the premise that the plaintiffs inherited the right to claim damages against the defendant of the above non-party deceased, as seen above, and the profits that should be deducted from the offset of profits and losses are presumed to have occurred against the above non-party deceased, and there is no room to apply the offset of profits and losses to the above non-party deceased, and therefore the defendant's defense as to this point is not justified.

Next, according to the evidence Nos. 4 (Certificate of Damage) and the testimony of Non-Party 1 by the above witness, the plaintiff 1, who did not dispute the establishment of the Health Center on the claim for damages caused by the damage of goods, can be acknowledged that the plaintiff 1 suffered damages equivalent to 8,440 won by destroying the glass and wounded noble persons who displayed on their own stores due to the accident of this case, and since there is no other counter-proof, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff 1 for the damage.

Next, in relation to the claim for consolation money for the plaintiffs, etc., the status relationship between the plaintiffs and the deceased non-party 4 is the same as the above-mentioned ones, so it can be easily acknowledged in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff's mental suffering has occurred due to the deceased non-party 4's death. The defendant is obligated to pay 50,000 won for the plaintiff 2, respectively, in consideration of the plaintiffs' family, property, work experience, and all other circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence in front of the health room and the defendant's public nature, and the defendant's family, property, work experience, and all other circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiff 1 at the rate of 5% per annum from September 3, 1964 to the full payment rate of 14 won, which is the sum of 8,440 won, the sum of 70,000 won, 135,610 won, the sum of 135,610 won, the sum of 28,585 won, the sum of 50,000 won, property damages from the above inheritance, and 78,585 won, the sum of 50,000 won, the sum of 78,585 won, and the following day after the tort in this case occurred, to the above inheritance. Therefore, the plaintiff 1 is justified within the extent of the above recognized amount, and the remainder of 14 won, which is justified, and the judgment of the court below is partially unfair. Article 989 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be amended to the extent of the defendant's appeal, and Article 989 of the Civil Execution Act shall be amended to the above 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)