209 Ghana 22343 Damage (ar)

1. Lao**************)*

Changwon-si ○○ Dong

2. △△**************)*

members of Ansan-si 00 Dong

3. Olur**************)*

Jung-Eup 00 Dong

4. Silur (****************)**)

Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○ Dong

5. Olur**************)*

Gwangju Northern Northern-gu ○○ Dong

6. Australia (********************)**)

1. 1. 1. 1. 1.2

7. Silur**************)*

Gwangju Northern Northern-gu ○○ Dong

8. Australia (********************)**)

Jung-Eup ○○ Dong

[Judgment of the court below]

The National Freight Trucking Federation

Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu 753-5,6

Seoul High Court Decision 224-8 224-8 (former Branch)

The representative director of Dol-gu is the representative director of Dol-gu

Attorney Kang Jae-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

March 19, 2010

April 16, 2010

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Masan 9,211,789 won, the amount of 5,250,000 won per annum from April 5, 2007 to April 16, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 7/10 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and 3/10 are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay, to the plaintiff defendant, the amount of KRW 13,505,268 per annum, the amount of KRW 13,505,165 per annum from April 5, 2007 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On April 5, 2007, at around 18:10, 18:10, △△-dong, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, △△-dong ********** the defendant's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's vehicle"), proceeding four-lanes from the shooting distance to the large intersection, while entering the above gas station for the main oil, △-gu, a bicycle going on the left side of the vehicle of the defendant's vehicle, and △-gu (hereinafter referred to as "the network"), a bicycle going on the upper left side of the vehicle of the defendant's vehicle, and △-gu, a bicycle going on the upper left side of the vehicle of the defendant's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), caused the death of the deceased, such as 0, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 0,000, 2,000.

(2) The instant accident place is where a five-lane road is installed, and both sides of the roads are installed a street screen enclosedd by low curbs, and the bicycle-only roads, street-only roadsides surrounded by curbstones, and delivery are installed next thereto, but the entrance part of the vehicle into the gas station is cut off by packing it in the asphalt, and delivery and bicycle-only roads. At the entrance of the gas station, a standing signboard indicating the oil price of the gas station is installed.

(3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle for a period including the date of the accident, and the plaintiffs are children of △△.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

According to the above facts, the defendant is the insurer under Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, and is obligated to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

C. Limitation on liability

On the other hand, according to the above evidence, the deceased's riding along the bicycle-only lane with a safe method. In particular, the point of the accident of this case is front of the gas station, where the vehicle's passage is frequent, the bicycle-only lane was partially cut off, and the driver of the vehicle entering the gas station was not secured enough time between the roadway and the roadway, so the driver of the vehicle who entered the gas station was not able to own safety by getting out of the bicycle and used the bicycle. However, even though he was negligent in wearing safety equipment such as safety caps and used the bicycle, he was found to have been negligent in driving the accident of this case at the point of the accident of this case without being negligent (in determining the amount of damages from the point of view of fairness or good faith, set the amount of damages from the victim's fault, the defendant's fault in applying the above damages from the accident of this case against the principle of set-off 30 in consideration of the circumstances of the tortfeasor's negligence and the victim's intentional negligence, the extent of damages from the accident of this case is limited to 90.

The defendant's responsibility is limited to 60% since it is reasonable to view it as 40% in light of developments and results. Meanwhile, although the defendant falls under the "vehicle of Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act", the defendant's bicycle must pass from the center of the road to the right side under Article 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, the deceased's bicycle driving on the left side of the road without driving it on the opposite bicycle road from the center of the road, and the bicycle driving on the left side of the road. However, although the above provision alleged by the defendant is applied to the bicycle driver driving on the roadway, the bicycle driving on the left side of the road shall be deemed to be an independent road. Thus, the bicycle driving on the right side of the bicycle-only road shall be deemed to be sufficient, and there is no evidence to recognize that the deceased passed from the center of the bicycle-only road to the left side, even if recognized, it is difficult to recognize the causal relation with the accident of this case. The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. The scope of liability for damages;

(a) Actual income:

The plaintiffs asserts that the deceased was able to work as a rural daily worker for 24 months from the date of the instant accident.

The maximum working age of a person engaged in daily-use work is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to deem that he/she is able to work until he/she reaches the age of 60, barring special circumstances. However, in extenuating circumstances where he/she is able to work over 60 in consideration of the victim’s career, age, occupation, health condition, etc., the victim’s maximum working age may be recognized beyond 60 years. Thus, on October 29, 1936, the deceased, who was the 70 years old and 5 months old at the time of the instant accident, was working even at the time of the instant accident, is not believed, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the maximum working age, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

(b) Wrasium treatment costs: 2,001,020 won (the Plaintiff’s expenses) shall be excluded, inasmuch as there is no evidence to regard it as damage in proximate with the instant accident, or as part of funeral expenses recognized separately, other than the part acknowledged by the following: Gap evidence 9-2 through 7, 9 through 11, 26 (part), 27, 29, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42 (part), 44, 46 (part), 48, 49, 57, 97, 113, 145, 150, 165, 169, 173Da 173 (the Plaintiff’s expenses).

(1) Recognized parts

Since the deceased continued to maintain a vegetable state, 31 days from April 5, 2007 to April 5, 2008, 2008, 36 days from April 5, 2007 to May 5, 2007, 2007, 6 days from June 2, 2007 to June 7, 2007, and 3 days from April 3, 2008 to April 5, 2008, as the plaintiffs seek, as the plaintiffs seek, for a period excluding 3 days from April 3, 2008 to April 5, 2008.

(2) Calculation

(A) From May 6, 2007 to June 1, 2007: 27 days x 58,83 won x 3,179,682 won x 2 x from June 8, 2007 to August 31, 2007: 85 days x 58,83 won x 2 x 10,010,110 won x 10 (c) x 215 days x 60,547 won x 26,035,210 won : 39,225,002 won :

(d) Funeral expenses: 3,000,000 won (Plaintiff △△ expenditure).

E. Limitation of liability

(1) The defendant's liability ratio: 60%

(2) After offsetting negligence, the Plaintiff’s property damage amounted to 26,535,613 [2,01,020 won + (39,225,02 won for nursing expenses + funeral expenses of 3,000,000 won] x 0.6];

(f) Mutual aid;

(1) Of the medical expenses paid by the Defendant, KRW 22,573,824 of the deceased’s negligence, KRW 56,434,560 of the medical expenses paid by the Defendant

(2) After the deduction, the Plaintiff’s property damages amounted to KRW 3,961,789 (=26,535,613 – 22,573,824)

(g) Consolation money;

(i)The reasons for consideration;

All circumstances, such as the deceased’s age, occupation, and degree of negligence, the background and result of the instant accident, the relationship and age of the plaintiffs, the driver of the Defendant vehicle paid KRW 10,00,000 to the criminal agreement amount.

(2) The amount determined;

(a) Deceased: 18,000,000 won

(b) Plaintiffs: each of 3,000,000 won

(h) Inheritance relationship: each of the plaintiffs 1/8;

[Reasons for Recognition] The evidence, absence of dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 11 as seen earlier, the fact inquiry results about Gwangju High-Tech Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 9,211,789 won to the plaintiff Hasan as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5,250,000 won per annum under the Civil Act from April 5, 2007, which is the date of the accident of this case, to April 16, 2010, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the date following the date of complete payment, to the plaintiff Masan, and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5,250,000 won per annum from April 5, 2007, which is the date of the accident of this case, to the defendant's damages for delay, and each claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each remainder is dismissed as there is no reason.

Judges Lee Young-ho