(a) The standards for calculating the rate of fault in a collision accident involving mast-in vehicles;

(b) If he/she compensates for minor children who have joined a vehicle driven by his/her father, he/she shall have the father's negligence;

A. If an accident of collision between marinad vehicles occurs due to entering the opposite opposite vehicle by course of the road central line, in order to overtake a bus in which the damaged vehicle is under way, it shall be deemed that if the damaged vehicle could avoid a collision with the above damaged vehicle if it was in the course of operating the center line, and if it is deemed that the damaged vehicle could not avoid a collision even if it was operated on the opposite vehicle without the medianing central line, it shall be deemed that the injured vehicle could not avoid a collision. In such a case, if the damaged vehicle is under a situation where it is deemed that the damaged vehicle could not avoid a collision even if it was operated on the opposite vehicle without the medianing central line, even if it was operated on the opposite vehicle, it would be deemed that the injured party’s fault ratio on the part of the injured party is lower than the perpetrator’s side would not be deemed to be unlawful as a wife significantly lose equity.

(b) Husbands living together with his father (not later than five years and one month in case of an accident) shall be deemed to form a whole of their status and living relations. Therefore, in case where the father is killed due to a collision with the vehicle driven by a third party while driving by his father, the driver’s negligence, who is the driver, shall also be considered as the fault on the part of the injured party, unless there are any special circumstances.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu293 Decided April 11, 1989

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Gwangju High Court Decision 88Na2945 delivered on December 2, 1988

The part of the judgment below against the defendants shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the court below's determination that Defendant 2 operated a road central line as of the time of the accident of this case is not erroneous in the rules of evidence as it did not violate the rules of evidence as in the theory of the appeal.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

(1) The lower court determined that it is reasonable to view the percentage of the deceased’s fault on the part of the victim, after explaining the circumstances of the accident as follows: (a) the dump truck driven driven by Defendant 2 was driven by a dump truck at a speed of about 60 kilometers per hour, and attempted to overtake the bus after the bus stopped at a point of about 50 meters on the front side of the bus flap line, which was parked at a point of 50 meters opposite to the dump truck; (b) the left side of the dump truck drivened by Nonparty 2, who was driven by the central line, was shocked to the left side of the dump truck.

However, if the collision accident occurred due to the collision between the central line of the road, in order to overtake a bus under the stop, and the opposite vehicle, if it is deemed that if the damaged vehicle could avoid the collision with the above damaged vehicle if it had not been driven by the central line, and if it is deemed that the damaged vehicle could not avoid the collision even if it had been driven by the vehicle without the collision with the central line, it shall be deemed that the injured vehicle could not avoid the collision. In such a case, if the damaged vehicle is in an inevitable situation, even if it was operated by the vehicle without the collision with the central line, it shall be deemed that the ratio of fault on the part of the injured party is less than 30 percent, which is less than the one of the perpetrator, and it shall not be deemed that the injured party's fault is unlawful as the wife.

Although the court below should have determined the ratio of negligence after examining the above points, the court below's decision that the ratio of negligence of the victim is reasonable by 30 percent without the name can not be said to have erred in the incomplete hearing and the lack of reasons.

(2) In addition, the court below determined that the ratio of negligence on the part of the non-party 2 who driven the damaged vehicle would be 30 percent, and on the other hand, with respect to the plaintiff 2 (at the time five years and one month elapsed at the time of the accident), who was accompanied by the damaged vehicle, as the children of the above deceased, the non-party 2 (at the time of the accident), deemed the negligence as the person responsible for care and custody, who was on board the deceased while disregarding his passenger capacity, to be 15 percent of the negligence on the part of the above victim, and deemed the negligence as 15 percent of the above victim, and

However, since a father and a child living together with his father are deemed to form a whole part of his status and living relationship, in case where the father is killed and injured as a result of a collision with a vehicle driven by a third party, the driver's negligence of the father, who is the driver, shall be considered as the fault on the part of the injured party, barring any special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu293, Apr. 11, 1989). The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to offsetting negligence, which was committed in consideration of the negligence on the part of the non-party deceased, who is the father, in taking into account the negligence on the part of the victim by the plaintiff 2, was not considered at all.

3. Ultimately, since the above judgment of the court below constitutes the grounds for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the part against the Defendants in the judgment below shall be reversed and remanded. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)