Where the cause of a traffic accident is unclear, the case of determining the rate of negligence by comparing and balancing the illegality of both parties;

The case holding that the rate of negligence is set by comparing and balancing illegality, such as drinking by both parties at the time of the accident, the degree of exceeding the speed limit, etc., in the case where the traffic accident is a place where traffic control is performed by an electronic signal, and the signal, etc. is normally operated at the time of the accident, and it is clear that one of the victims and the perpetrator was in violation of one signal, but it is not disclosed

Articles 396, 750, and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorney Cho Chang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorney Yellow-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 1 48,278,65 won, gold 46,739,085 won, gold 1,000 won, gold 2,40,000 won to the plaintiff 6 for each of the plaintiffs 1 and 46,739,085 won, and gold 2,40,000 won, and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 5 percent per annum from March 19, 196 to April 18, 197, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are divided into three parts, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the other is the defendants' own burden.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 102,345,517 won, gold 95,717 won to the plaintiff 2, gold 5,148,590 won to the plaintiff 6, gold 3,00,000 won to the plaintiff 3,4, and 50 won respectively, and 5,000 won to the plaintiff 3,00,000 won to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from March 19, 1996 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 5 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date, and 25 percent per annum.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) On March 19, 196, Defendant 1, who purchased an automobile comprehensive insurance policy operated by Defendant Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”), was driving a (vehicle number omitted), with a alcohol concentration of 0.09% in blood, and was under insurance period, at around 04:5 on March 19, 196, at the 4-distance intersection of the road in front of the Changwonwon-dong, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, at the marb, at a speed exceeding 60 km speed per hour at a speed exceeding 60 km per hour at the speed of 111 km, was negligent in neglecting the above intersection from the right side of the above Defendant’s moving direction to the left side of the above Defendant’s moving direction, and did not discover the above part of the Plaintiff’s car with the above 5-lane driver’s 1’s left side of the deceased’s car without any damage to the above 5-lane car at the same speed.

(2) Plaintiff 1 and 2 are parents, Plaintiff 3, 4, 5, and 6 as to the deceased.

(3) Accordingly, Defendant 1 is an illegal person or operator who drives the above Aburged Car due to negligence, and the Defendant Company is liable as the insurer for the damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the respective accidents.

(A) Evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, 2, 7, 8, 13-1 through 4, 14-1 through 5, 15-1 through 29, and the whole purport of the pleadings, images, and the whole purport of the evidence Nos. 15-1 through 29

B. Limitation on liability

(1) The standard for determination: The evidence cited in paragraph (1) of the same Article reveals that traffic control is carried out by the electronic signal, etc. at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and that the said electronic signal, etc. works normally rather than on-and-off, etc., so it should be determined whether Defendant 1 and the deceased violated the signal, and accordingly, the ratio of negligence and negligence between the two parties should be determined. However, even through the investigation and criminal trial, it is not possible to prevent it, and even based on the investigation and criminal trial, there is no highly superior evidence to the degree that the conclusion of the criminal trial was followed by the investigation and criminal trial. Accordingly, the ratio of negligence shall be determined by comparing and balancing the illegality of both parties at the time of the accident.

(2) Grounds for determination

(1) At the time, Defendant 1 was under the influence of 110km over 60km, the speed of driving at the time was limited, and was under the influence of 0.09%, and was under the influence of playing towards male customers and the heading. In addition, Defendant 1 was under the influence of a significant tension.

2) As to this, the Non-Party Deceased was at the tension that he first started a day on the ground that, at the time, the driving speed exceeded 60 km, but did not drinking, and he was at the time, at the time, delivered a newspaper on the west-gun of the Hallan-gun of the Gyeongnam-gun, and that he first started a day.

(3) Determination

In light of the above, the illegality of Defendant 1 is relatively larger than that of Nonparty 1’s deceased, and its ratio is 70:30. Therefore, in this case, the fault ratio of Nonparty 1 is 30%.

2. Scope of damages.

A. The lost income (the deceased)

(1) Calculation element

(i) Personal information: A male who was born on August 15, 1975 and was 20 years of age at the time of the accident;

2) Income: The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased graduated from the Haban-gun, and the current address is rural community as well as their parents while owning a considerable farmland at the Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun (hereinafter omitted) and thus, they return to the farm after the completion of the head of the Haban-gun, although they currently live in the Haban-gun, income base for daily income should be based on the daily wage for rural communities. However, in full view of the arguments in the evidence No. 1, No. 2-1, No. 2-2, and No. 2-1, No. 9, the deceased were third children and were in the Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Haban-si.

(iii) Cost of living: 1/3 (no dispute exists) of revenues.

d) Period of operation: Until 22 days reaches 60 years of age (no dispute or rule of experience)

(Evidence) Evidence No. 1, No. 18, and the whole purport of the pleading

(2) mountain (in accordance with cryption)

＊군복무를 마치는 만 23세가 되는 1998. 8. 15.경부터 가동기간의 종료일인 60세가 되는 2035. 8. 15.까지 444개월

＊34,947×22×2/3×(260.6542－26.4313)＝120,052,352원

(b) Medical expenses (Plaintiffs 1): 199,400 won (the medical expenses of Nonpartys deceased in the Maposan Hospital, see evidence 4-1, 2)

(c) Funeral expenses (Plaintiff 1): 2,000,000 won (no dispute exists).

(d) Automobile loss (Plaintiff 6): 2,000,000 won (no dispute exists);

(e) Preparation;

(1) Non-party Deceased: 120,052,352 won of the lost income ¡¿0.7 (b) =84,036,646 won of the lost income

(2) Plaintiff 1: (The treatment cost of KRW 199,400 + Funeral expenses of KRW 2,00,000) ¡¿0.7 (b) =1,539,580

(3) Plaintiff 6: 2,00,000 won per vehicle loss ¡¿ 0.7 (b) = 1,400,000 won

(f) Public offering;

(1) Amount to be deducted;

1) Of the KRW 2,429,200 (refer to the evidence No. 1-2, 200) paid by the Defendant Company to the Solar Medical Foundation located in Changwon-si by the time of the death of the deceased, 728,760 (refer to the evidence No. 2,429,200 x 0.3) equivalent to the negligence of the deceased.

2) 6,824,187 won (22,747,290 x 0.3) equivalent to the portion of the negligence of the above deceased among the 22,747,290 won (no dispute over internal damage exists, and see evidence 3-1) paid by the Defendant Company to the non-party 1 injured by the above accident.

(c) KRW 3,351,760 (see evidence 3-2) paid by the Defendant Company to the Korea Medical Foundation located in Changwon-si, for the medical expenses of Nonparty 2 injured by the Defendant Company, KRW 1,605,528 (see evidence 3-3,351,760 x 0.3) equivalent to the deceased’s negligence

(2) Calculation: 84,036,646 won (728,760 won +6,824,824, 187 +1,05,528 won) =75,478,171 won

(g) Consolation money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: Ghana; family relations; property and educational degree; background of the accident; degree of negligence on the part of the victim; degree of criminal agreement; amounting to KRW 20,00,000; and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

(2) The amount of decision

Non-party Deceased (Person): 10,000,000 won

Plaintiff 1 and 2 (parents): 4,000,000 won, respectively.

Plaintiff 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Ss and siblings): each gold 1,000,000

(h) Inheritance relationship;

(1) Objects of inheritance: 85,478,171 won (actual income 75,478,171 won + 10,000,000 won) of the non-party deceased

(b) Inheritances and the amount: 42,739,085 won, respectively (85,478,171 x 1/2, and 30 won, respectively);

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to plaintiffs 1 48,278,665 won (42,739,085 won + 4,539,500 won plus 4,539,580 won for treatment expenses and funeral expenses) and 46,739,085 won for plaintiffs 2 (42,739,085 won + 42,739,005 won for inheritance + 4,000 won for consolation money + 4,000,000 won for 3,4,50 won for each of them, and 2,40,000,000 won for annual damages from the following day to 3,50 won for 196.196.4 billion won for each of the above disputes.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For the transfer of judge Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)