The fall aircraft accident and the negligence of the pilot;

The pilot has a duty of care to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft and to take for accident prevention measures through a detailed inspection of the aircraft he/she operates, a thorough and thorough deliberation of the navigation rules and sufficient research of weather conditions.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (68Ga6918) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 68Da6918)

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1944 Delivered on November 24, 1970

(1) The original judgment shall be revoked.

② The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 60,00, KRW 170,00 to Plaintiff 2, KRW 120,000, and KRW 120,00 to Plaintiff 3, and KRW 5% per annum from April 9, 1967 to the full payment.

③ The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The total costs of a lawsuit shall be ten minutes, which shall be borne by the plaintiffs, while the remaining one by the defendants.

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 130,00 won, 210,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 160,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and an amount of 5 percent per annum from April 9, 1967 to the full payment.

The defendant sought a judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and expanded it in the trial before the remand, and the defendant sought a judgment to pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 946,189, KRW 1,354,283, KRW 916,189, KRW 90 (including the amount of the first claim for all these amounts) to the plaintiff 2, and the amount of KRW 916,189, KRW 900 per annum from April 9, 1967 to the full payment (the received on April 20, 1970).

The legal representative of the plaintiff et al. sought the cancellation of the original judgment and the same judgment as the above purport of claim.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant litigation performer has an error of law in filing a lawsuit without going through the decision of the compensation deliberation council according to the prior principle of Article 9 of the State Compensation Act.

In other words, the Act was promulgated by Act No. 1899 on Mar. 3, 1967 and its Addenda No. 1, the Act provides that the Act shall enter into force on the date 30 days have passed after its promulgation, which eventually means that the Act shall take effect on Apr. 3, 1967, since the accident occurred on Apr. 8, 1967.

According to the statement of evidence No. 4, which is not a dispute over the establishment of the State Compensation Act (No. 1899), the current State Compensation Act (No. 1899), as alleged by the defendant, was published in the Official Gazette No. 4588 of March 3, 1967, but the Official Gazette can be recognized that it was published only on March 9, 1967, and Articles 11 and 12 of the Act on the Prohibition of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc. (No. 1539), the promulgation of Acts and subordinate statutes and orders should be published in the Official Gazette, and the promulgation or publication date of the above Acts and subordinate statutes shall be the date on which the Official Gazette (or newspapers) published in the Official Gazette (No. 1539), and without being related to March 3, 1967, the State Compensation Act should be promulgated or announced publicly on March 9, 1967.

Since the enforcement date of the Act came into force from April 9, 1947, which was thirty (30) days after the enforcement date of the Act, the current State Compensation Act shall not apply to the accident occurred on April 8, 1967, and the former State Compensation Act shall apply to the accident. The former Act does not have any provision on the principle of pre-instigation of a lawsuit, such as the defendant's assertion, and there is no reason to change the safety resistance.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

3) On the ground of the non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 1’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 2’s non-party 1’s.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages to the plaintiff 2 and 3, who is his/her father, his/her father, his/her father, as his/her public official caused damage to another person due to negligence in the course of performing his/her duties.

3. Loss resulting from expected loss of income;

Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 (Simplified Life Table 5) No. 5 (In fact reply 1) 】 8 (Dong 10) 】 10-2 (Construction Wage Marks and Contents) 】 31 years old at the time of death as of September 11, 1935, and 31 years old at least 7 years old, 400 won were assigned to the telecommunication electronic officer at least 15,290 won at the time of death, 200 won, family allowances 1,50 won, 1,900 won, 200 won, 1,690 won, 690 won, and 40 won were removed for 7 years old and later, 30 years old and later, 5 years old and later, 30 years old and later.

Therefore, since the plaintiffs are jointly inherited, there were claims of plaintiffs 1, 3, 420 won, and 632,130 won, in proportion to their shares of inheritance.

4. Consolation money.

According to the above facts, the defendant paid 70,000 won to the plaintiff 1 and 2, and 40,000 won respectively to the plaintiff 2 and 3 on the records such as the background of the accident, the status, other age, educational background, property level, etc. of the plaintiff et al., which were acknowledged as above, the defendant received 73,390 won for survivors' pension, 183,480 won for survivors' pension after the plaintiff 2 died and received 73,390 won for death and 183,480 won for death. Thus, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff et al. shall be dismissed as there is no reason.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, it is recognized that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to 421,420 won, 632,130 won to the plaintiff 2, 421,420 won to the plaintiff 3, and 5% interest per annum from April 9, 1967 to the full payment of the above amount.

However, on July 5, 1968, the plaintiffs filed a claim of 10 won as stated in the claim, but sought the same amount as stated in the claim on April 20, 1970 before they were remanded. As seen earlier, the victims were aware that the damages were caused by the tort of 1967. The damages claim of 10 won and 10 won were 0 won per annum for 00 won per annum for damages and 10 won per annum for 00 won per annum for damages. Thus, according to Article 766 of the Civil Code, the damages claim of 10 won for 10 won per annum for damages and 10 won per annum for 00 won per annum for damages and 10 won per annum for 60 won per annum for damages, and the damages claim of 10 won for 10 won per annum for 60 won per annum for damages and 30 won per annum for 60 won per annum for damages, and thus, the damages claim of 10 won for 10 won per annum for 60 days per annum for damages.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the above recognized scope and the remainder shall be dismissed. Since the judgment of a different court is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 89, 92, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yekpo-syun (Presiding Judge)