Whether the statement that the victim did not think that the perpetrator would claim consolation money from the investigative agency can be deemed to be a waiver of the claim for consolation money.

Even if it is recognized that the plaintiff, the victim of military investigation, did not want the punishment of the perpetrator at a military police unit, which is a military investigation agency, and that there was no idea to claim consolation money, it cannot be readily concluded that it was a waiver of the claim of consolation money.

Articles 751 and 752 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana1003) in the first instance trial

This appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 70,000 won, 463,304 won to the plaintiff 2, 306,652 won to the plaintiff 3, and an amount of 5% per annum from July 4, 1965 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant and provisional execution declaration. The defendant sought the dismissal of the plaintiff et al. and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff et al.

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

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc. of the first and second instance court.

1. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that Nonparty 1’s disease (military omitted) who is a driver of the transport vehicle of the Defendant’s Navy No. 20 (1/2) ton of the Maritime Navigation Base Headquarters, operated the vehicle above the vehicle over the North Port Dives of the Port on July 2, 1965, 19:30 Mapo-ro 1 to 71:0 Mapo-si, 1 to 71:0 Mapo-si, 1 to 71:0 Mapo-si, and died on the following day.

2. The following is the key to determine the establishment of a tort:

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 2 (a certified copy of judgment), which does not conflict with the establishment of the above headquarters, the non-party No. 1 testified that the non-party No. 2 was present at the above headquarters's military chaplain's military chaplain room and spawn, and the non-party No. 2 was present at the top of about 12 knife in the front of the above church and the spawn for the purpose of the gravel transport work. In this case, the non-party No. 1 was responsible for damages caused by the non-party No. 1's tort unless there is any counter-proof that the spawn while continuing the spawn and making it possible for the above vehicle to stop rapidly.

3. The following are examined as to the defendant's fault-off defense.

The defendant, as the parent of the above deceased, did not perform his duty of care and custody of the deceased at the age of four per year, so the accident occurred. Thus, according to the records of No. 1 (No dispute over the establishment of the deceased, the above deceased remains 2 years and 9 months (no. 11) at the time of death, and the plaintiff No. 2 recognized that the father of the deceased was the mother of the deceased at the time of death, and the plaintiff No. 3 was recognized as the mother of the deceased, and as such, when considering the circumstances and circumstances acknowledged earlier, the plaintiff No. 2 and 3 neglected the deceased as the parent of the above deceased at the time of the accident, the plaintiff No. 2 and 3 was negligent in failing to perform their duty of care and custody, and the negligence should be taken into account in this case's damages decision.

4. The plaintiff 2 and 3's decision is examined as to the claim for passive damages.

If the testimony of Non-Party 3 is collected from Non-Party 3 on each of the above evidence Nos. 3-1, 2 (the contents of the No. 3 Survey Report) and 4 (Simplified Life Table) of the court below without dispute over the establishment of the deceased, the family business of the above deceased was agriculture, the average male wage of 231 won per day around July 1965, and the monthly living expenses of workers in agricultural villages was 2,500 won per day, and the average remaining life expenses of the above deceased were 56.31 years, it is recognized that 30,000 won per annum for 300,000 won per annum for 20,000 won per annum for 300,000 won per annum for 300,000 won per annum for 300,000 won per annum for 25,000 won per annum for 30,000 won per annum for 25,000 won per annum for 30,000,000 won per annum.

5. The following are examined as to the claim of consolation money of the plaintiff, etc.

As the above-mentioned evidence No. 1 and Non-party 3's testimony are gathered, the plaintiff 1's assistance division of the above deceased and the fact that the above deceased was five readers, it can be sufficiently identified in light of our rule of experience that the plaintiff et al. suffered from the death of the deceased. In addition, in consideration of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the accident in this case and the various circumstances shown in the present argument, the consolation money amount to be paid as the defendant shall be determined to the plaintiff 1 30,000 won per gold to the plaintiff 2 and 3,000 won.

The defendant renounced his right to claim consolation money on July 8, 1965. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is unreasonable. Thus, according to the statement of Eul No. 1 (statement of Statement) which does not dispute the establishment, the plaintiff is asked at the military police unit of the same military police station of the same military police station about whether the plaintiff wants to punish the non-party 1 or claim consolation money when he made a statement about the accident at the same military police station of the same military police station, and the non-party 1 stated that the non-party 1 did not want to claim consolation money, but it cannot be concluded that the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is a waiver of consolation money only with such statement, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts of the above defense. Thus, the plaintiff's defense is not justified.

6. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 30,000 won and 200,000 won of consolation money and 100,000 won of consolation money and 200,000 won of consolation money to the plaintiff 2, 300,000 won of consolation money and 100,000 won of consolation money and 100,000 won of compensation for damages after the date of the above accident. Since the plaintiff et al. claims from July 4, 1965 to the date of each full payment, the plaintiff et al. has a duty to pay 5% of the annual interest rate as damages for delay under the Civil Act from July 4, 1965 to the date of the above accident. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s claims are justified within the above recognition, and the remaining part of the claims are without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is decided as per each order of Article 95 of the same Act.

Judges Kim Jung-so (Presiding Judge)