Whether the travel expenses paid to the engineer are included in the pay in calculating the profit of the day;

Since travel expenses included in the pay are consumed for each business trip, the above travel expenses can not be included in the pay.

Article 756 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da394 delivered on April 28, 1970 (Supreme Court Decision 71Da1982 delivered on October 22, 1971, 71Da1982 delivered on October 22, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 9862 delivered on September 19, 197, Supreme Court Decision 19Third citizen65 delivered on June 25, 197,

Plaintiff 1

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana16084) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 71Da1982 delivered on October 22, 1971

In the judgment of the court below, the part which dismissed the claim against the plaintiffs regarding the next order for payment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 420,020 won to the plaintiff 1, 185,010 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% interest per annum from June 11, 1970 to the day of full payment.

The defendant's appeal and the plaintiffs' remaining incidental appeal are dismissed.

The total costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remaining four shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 2,386,784 won to the plaintiff 1 and 1,193,393 won to the plaintiff 2 with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from June 11, 1970 to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant (the partial withdrawal of the lawsuit from the trial court)

The judgment of the court below is rendered to revoke the part of the defendant's failure and dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

The cancellation of the part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 844,284 won, the amount of 422,142 won against the plaintiff 2, and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from June 11, 1970 to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

With respect to the establishment of tort in this case and the defendant's liability for damages caused by such tort, the defendant, as the employer of the perpetrator of this case, is liable for compensating for damages caused by the tortfeasor's tort, the original judgment is the same as the original judgment, except for supplement for correction, and therefore, it shall be accepted by Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Furthermore, this paper examines the amount of damages.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and Nos. 4-1 and 8 of the above evidence Nos. 1 and 4-2, and the purport of the testimony and pleading of the non-party 1 to the court below, the deceased non-party 2, the victim of this case, is a healthy male who was born on March 20, 1950 and has been employed for 42.28 years, and the average female is appointed to Grade 4 of the above 7 years old. The plaintiffs were appointed to Grade 7 of the conditional engineer No. 1970, and were working in the office of the defendant Y 1, 3, and 1970, and were employed to raise the above amount to KRW 1,50,700,000 for KRW 1,70,000,000 for KRW 7,000,000 for KRW 1,70,000 for KRW 1,50,000.

The plaintiffs' attorney asserts that the above travel expenses should not be deducted from the above travel expenses, since the above travel expenses should be included in the living expenses, since the above travel expenses should be borne separately from the living expenses. Thus, considering the testimony of the above non-party deceased's witness at the court below, the above argument can not be accepted, since it is true that the monthly living expenses of the non-party deceased's non-party deceased's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's will.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum, which is a civil legal interest, from June 11, 1970 to the time of full payment with respect to the plaintiff 1,887,834 won and the day following the occurrence of the tort in this case against the plaintiff 2, and from June 11, 1970 to the time of full payment with respect to the plaintiff 1, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 1,887,834 won, and the part dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the plaintiff 1, who excluded the above amount of the award from the above amount of the award in the court below, and 185,010 won against the plaintiff 2, and the part of the plaintiffs' incidental appeal corresponding thereto is reasonable. Accordingly, the court below's judgment revoked the above part of the judgment in accordance with Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the remainder of the plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's appeal are without merit, and it is dismissed as to the costs of lawsuit by applying Articles 96 and 935 and 98.

Judge Jeon Soo-chul (Presiding Judge)