2016 Ghana 5262850 Damages (i.e., losses)

A

Attorney Jeong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

B Stock Company

Law Firm Dowon (Law Firm Dowon)

Attorney Hong-ho, Mag-ho, Mag-ho, Mag-ho, Han-gu, Nam-ju

December 6, 2018

January 31, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 214,140,657 won with 5% interest per annum from December 26, 2015 to January 31, 2019, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 5% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 223,374,45 won with 5% interest per annum from December 26, 2015 to the service date of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

1) On December 26, 2015, C driven a D D dump truck (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle") under the influence of alcohol level of 0.097% at around 02:40% on December 26, 2015, and proceeding three lanes along two lanes in front of the public procurement office located in Chuncheon City, Gyeongcheon-si, along the two-lanes from the parallel distance from the parallel distance to the parallel distance from the parallel. On December 26, 2015, C turned back the two-lanes from the parallel line to the parallel distance from the parallel distance from the parallel line, while driving in the U.S. in order to turn back to the parallel line, C got a part of the right side of the F dump (CLK) driven by E, 125 Oba (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Oback") in the direction of the running of the Defendant vehicle, and caused the accident above hereinafter referred to as "the accident").

2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the Plaintiff Oral Ba, was injured by an injury, such as a pelle between the closed booms.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Recognition of liability

According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances, since the plaintiff was injured due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.

C. Determination on the assertion on limitation of liability

The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's responsibility should be limited in accordance with the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, as the plaintiff has taken the part in the off-to-land operated by male-friendly job offering E, or that the defendant's responsibility should be limited in accordance with the principle of good faith or equity, or that he neglected to urge the driver E, who is the driver, to observe the designated lane.

In light of various circumstances, such as the purpose and activeness of taking the same responsibility as a general traffic accident, if it is deemed extremely unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith and equity, the amount of compensation may be reduced. However, even if the vehicle involved in the accident simply took the same responsibility on the vehicle involved in the accident, it does not constitute a cause to reduce the amount of compensation. Furthermore, even if the vehicle took the vehicle without compensation, such fact alone does not constitute a duty of care to urge the driver to ensure safe operation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da32917, Nov. 25, 1994). Barring special circumstances such as the fact that the driver of the vehicle is significantly influencatedd driving or is aware of the risk of the accident due to any other reason, it cannot be said that the driver has a duty of care to urge the driver to ensure safe operation.

In this case, the evidence submitted by the defendant and the above circumstances asserted by the defendant alone are that the defendant's liability due to the accident of this case is limited due to the plaintiff's accompanying succession, or it is difficult to view that the plaintiff who is a mere passenger of a vehicle has a duty of care to urge the plaintiff to ensure safe operation

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages shall be the same as the corresponding item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages, and the period for calculating the amount for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but less than a month and less than a won shall be discarded. The current value calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the simple interest rate which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. And it shall

(a) Actual income:

1) Personal information: as stated in the separate sheet of calculation of damages in attached Form.

(b) Income and operation period: Before the day wage (22 days of a monthly operation) in an ordinary part of an urban area and 65 years old;

A) Maximum working age

The Plaintiff asserts that the maximum working age should be set at 65 years and the amount of damages shall be the amount of lost income up to that time. The Defendant asserts that it is reasonable to regard the maximum working age as 60 years.

In full view of the overall indexes, namely, extension of the average life expectancy, extension of the retirement age of public and private enterprises, extension of the age limit for public officials in technical service and private enterprises, and in particular, extension of the age for receiving public pension to 65 years, support of their own livelihood by pension has been granted, and other changes in circumstances, such as social, economic structure and living conditions, etc. as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that the maximum working age of living activities whose main contents are general physical labor or physical labor, is 65 years in light of the empirical rule. As long as the maximum working age of physical workers is recognized as 65 years in light of the empirical rule, it is reasonable to deem that an income equivalent to urban daily wage can be earned until the maximum working age is determined as 65 years.

In the Plaintiff’s case, there is no specific circumstance to set the maximum working age by reducing the relevant age, health condition, etc. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s maximum working age ought to be deemed to be until reaching the age of 65 and the Plaintiff’s actual income should be calculated on the premise that he/she could obtain income equivalent to urban daily wage until he/she reaches the age of

B)the number of operating days

The defendant asserts that the monthly working days of the plaintiff should be recognized only 19 days. However, in light of the empirical rule, the monthly working days of workers engaged in physical labor shall be deemed to be the average 22 days per month. However, if there are statistics and other data that are appropriate to apply or apply in specific cases, the number of working days can be recognized differently as above. Thus, the materials submitted by the defendant alone do not seem to have a reason to set the number of working days of the plaintiff differently from the empirical rule. The above argument is rejected.

(iii)the ratio of injury to the latter and labor capacity;

(a)competence;

(1) Mental health department: 26% of the loss rate of labor ability due to stress disorder caused by external stress disorder, and the market sea for two years from the appraisal date ( October 25, 2017) (applicable to two parts of the Mabrid Disability Assessment Table, VII-B-2-b, and occupational coefficient 5)

(2) Emotional surgery.

7% of the loss of labor capacity due to non-conformity of the aggregate of the upper left-hands, permanent obstacles

[Application of Section I-1 of Clobrid Disability Assessment Table, Section 6 of Clobrid Disability Assessment Table, Occupational Coefficient 6]

The rate of loss of labor ability due to the part of the right high class lecture and the part of the attached department, 12%, reduction

Market sea for two years from the due date ( December 12, 2017) (limited to high level of Mabrid disability assessment table II -A-1, and applying occupational coefficient 6)

(3) Plastic surgery: 15% of the clinical disability, permanent disability (the left-hand side of the plaintiff, slick, and lower-ranking part).

The maximum 70cc of girre, the upperest 25cc, the maximum 50cm of 50cm, bre, the upper right-side reflectors, 20cc x 10cc x 20cc x 10cc x 20cc x 25cc x 10cc x 10cm, 30cm x 15cc x 15cc stre on the upper right-hand side, and permanent flus on the upper right-hand side, etc.)

(4) The multiple disability ratio.

A person shall be appointed.

B) Ratio of loss of labor capacity

① From December 26, 2015 to September 25, 2016: 10% (in cases of hospitalization, the Plaintiff received hospital treatment for a total of 269 days from the date of the instant accident to March 2, 2017, and the Plaintiff received hospital treatment for a total of 269 days from the date of the instant accident to March 2, 2017. For the convenience of calculation, no later than September 25, 2016, which remains nine months from the date of the instant accident, shall be deemed as the period of hospitalization, and the daily income shall

(2) From September 26, 2016 to October 25, 2019:

48.52%

(3) From October 26, 2019 to December 25, 2019, from the end of the Han-gu Market Sea to the right-hand end: 30.43%

(4) From January 12, 2019, until May 18, 205 (the date at which this Agreement ended) 20.95%

4) Calculation: Detailed calculations are as listed below, and as below, KRW 165,704,718 sought by the Plaintiff as losses.

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Expenses for medical treatment, etc.: 2,55,979 won (Evidence A9);

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

(i) expenses for sex surgery and future treatment;

A total of KRW 23,250,000 is required against the Plaintiff. Since there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff spent it by the closing date of the pleadings in this case, it shall be deemed that it was disbursed on December 7, 2018, the day following the closing date of pleadings in this case for the convenience of calculation, and if it is calculated at the present price at the time of the accident in this case, it is as indicated in the corresponding item of the attached Table for

(ii) expenses for mental health and future treatment;

By December 7, 2018,590 won (=Medical examination fees of KRW 19,630 + Medical examination fees of KRW 28,960 + medicine expenses of KRW 120,00 ( KRW 4,000) + KRW 120,000 ( KRW 30), respectively) each month until December 25, 2019. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff spent this until the closing date of the instant pleadings, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff spent it from December 7, 2018, which is the day following the closing date of the instant pleadings, to the treatment completion date for the sake of calculation, and it shall be calculated at the present price as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

(d) Mutual aid:

The damages amounting to 24,00,000 won paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be deducted from the actual damages amount of the Plaintiff.

(e) consolation money;

1. Reasons for taking into account: Circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the background of the accident of this case, the age and degree of negligence of the plaintiff, and the degree and degree of the disability of the latter.

(ii) Amount recognized: 48,000,000 won;

[Ground of recognition] The absence of dispute, Gap's evidence 8, 9, 10, Eul's evidence 10, Eul's evidence 10, G Hospital Head of this Court, H Hospital Head, and I Hospital Head's fact-finding results and fact-finding results, significant facts, experience, and purport of the whole argument

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 214,140,657 (=property damage KRW 166,140,657 + solatium 48,00,000 +) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 26, 2015, which is the date of the instant accident, to January 31, 2019, which is the date of the instant judgment, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Jeong-Sa

A person shall be appointed.