The validity of an agreement that believeds the diagnosis of the doctor in charge during the period of hospitalization due to an accident.

Unless there are any particular circumstances, the above agreement is a juristic act of mistake on the important part of the content, if the Plaintiff, who was hospitalized in a traffic accident, believed the diagnosis of the doctor in charge that the injury suffered from an accident will be completely cured without legacy, received only KRW 1,500,00 with the knowledge that continuous work would be possible, and agreed to receive only KRW 1,50,00,00 with the knowledge that it would be possible to continue to work as a driver at the time of the accident. However, after the completion of the treatment, the treatment would result in the aftermathing of the ability to work as an urban or rural worker and would no longer be engaged as a driver requiring high level of immigration.

Article 109 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200

Busan Metropolitan Transport Limited Partnership

Suwon District Court Incheon Branch (82 Gohap1704)

1. The defendant's new steel owner, Dong-ju, but the appeal against the Dong Kim-young is dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the part against the defendant against the plaintiff in respect of the total interference with the plaintiff in the original judgment, the part ordering the defendant to pay in excess of the amount equivalent to 8,162,484 won and the rate of 5% per annum from December 9, 1982 to the full payment, shall be revoked, and the above plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

3. All the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff in the fixed number of the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be divided into four parts of the costs of appeal between the plaintiff in the first and second instances, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant in the above part, and the plaintiff in the new owner of the plaintiff in the old, the Dong, but the costs of appeal arising from the appeal against the

The plaintiffs set the amount of KRW 1,00,000 to the plaintiff 16,371,097, and the amount of KRW 1,00,000 to the same new iron owner, but they shall pay to the same Kim Jong-young the amount of KRW 500,00 per annum from December 9, 1982 to the full payment rate of KRW 5% per annum.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution is sought.

The defendant has revoked the part against the defendant in the original judgment, and each of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

In full view of the purport of the pleading in light of Gap's statement No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3-1 (each diagnosis letter), and the result of the examination of the criminal records by the court below, etc., the above roads are the front side of the pleading. The non-party 1, who is the driver of a business taxi No. 16235, owned by the defendant, operated the above taxi at around 50, March 11, 1980 and operated the above taxi at about 50 kilometers per hour from the south-gu, Incheon. The above roads reached the front side of the road on April 2, 197, the non-party 2, which had been negligent in driving the above taxi at the speed of 26 meters above the above front side of the road, and thus, it is hard to find that the above roads were the front side of the road by the non-party 1, the front side of the road due to the increase of the commercial buildings and houses on the right side of the plaintiff 1's front side.

Therefore, the defendant is responsible for compensating for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident that occurred due to the operation of the above taxi as a person who operates an automobile for himself.

On the other hand, according to the evidence above, the above accident occurred at night at the time of the accident, and the above road was a place where the passage of the vehicle is frequent, and even if the vehicle is to cross the above road through a safe crosswalk by examining the progress of the vehicle, it can be recognized that the above accident occurred while under the influence of alcohol and the above accident occurred. Thus, the above plaintiff's negligence was concurrent in the accident, but this does not constitute the degree of exemption from the defendant's liability for damages. However, in calculating the amount of damages suffered by the defendant, the above negligence should be considered.

However, Defendant 1’s attorney agreed to receive KRW 1,50,00 from the above Defendant on August 12, 1980 after the accident and to waive the remainder of the right to compensation for damages. Thus, the above Plaintiff’s claim for this case is alleged to the effect that it is unfair, and according to the statement of No. 2-1 and the testimony of the new witness on August 12, 1980, the above Plaintiff’s allegation that the above Plaintiff would not have reached an agreement with the Defendant on August 12, 1980, and that it would be 1,50,000 won for damages caused by the accident, and that it would not have reached an agreement with the above Defendant on the right-hand side of the above Defendant 1, as it was found that the above Plaintiff would not have reached an agreement with the above Defendant on August 12, 1980, and thus, it would be possible to waive the remainder of the right to compensation for damages against the above Defendant at the time of the above death (excluding the above Defendant’s testimony and the witness at the court below’s 197th.

2. Scope of damages.

A. Property damage in the Plaintiff’s interference

(1) Loss resulting from expected loss of income.

In light of the above evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 5 (Driver's license), Gap evidence No. 6 (Simplified Life Table), Gap evidence No. 7 (Construction Price), and Gap evidence No. 4 (benefit Certificate), the testimony of the above witness and the result of the second physical appraisal commission to the Chief of Seoul National University Hospital (on May 17, 1983), etc., the remaining number of the plaintiff was health of 27 years old and 38 years old, and the average remaining life of 10 years old is less than 38 years old, and the above plaintiff cannot be acknowledged as being employed by the first-class driver's license at the time of the accident and the first-class driver's license at the time of the accident and the second physical appraisal of the above witness at the time of the court below's testimony and the second physical appraisal entrustment (on May 17, 1983), etc., the plaintiff's remaining life at the time of the above 10th day after the completion of the above 10th day after the death.

Therefore, the above plaintiff suffered losses for 36 months from the date of the accident in this case until the end of 55 years of age (less than the month, as claimed by the above plaintiff), from 250,000 won per month, monthly revenue which can be earned from the above driver's work as above, and from 113,950 won per month (5,300 won x 25 x 86/100) deducting monthly amount of 136,050 won (25,000 won x 113,950 won) which can be earned from the above operator's daily work due to the above loss of labor ability as seen above, and 136,050 won per month (250,000 won - 113,950 won) were lost (within the period of injury treatment due to the above plaintiff's accident or 250,000 won per month, it is clear that the above plaintiff's losses were to be paid in the order above 2016,525,0160,2500% per month.

(2)Contributory negligence, etc.

However, as seen above, since the negligence of the plaintiff's participation in the accident occurred concurrently, the damages equivalent to the actual profit of the above plaintiff should be paid by the defendant, in consideration of the above facts, shall be 17,127,696 won (28,546,160 won x 60/100).

Meanwhile, without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (A) and Eul evidence 4 (Certificate 4) and Eul evidence 1 to 6 (each simple account statement) of Nos. 2-1 to 6 (each simple account statement) and the witness of the above court, part of the witness Lee Jong-hee's testimony (excluding the above and the subsequent parts) and the result of the second physical appraisal of the chairman of the Seoul National University Hospital, the remaining number of the plaintiff 2-1 to 6-14 of the above fact that the defendant paid damages for the above 7-1 to 0-1 to 6-14 of the above fact that the above 7-1 to 6-2 of the above fact that the defendant had paid damages for the injury caused by the above 70-1 to 60-7 of the above fact that the defendant had paid damages for the above 7-1 to 6-1 to 6-2 of the above fact that the defendant had paid damages for the above 7-1 to 7-1 to 7-2 of the above fact that the defendant had paid damages for the above 7-2-1 to 7-1 to 5-20-2 of the defendant'sul.

B. The plaintiffs' consolation money

In light of the empirical rule, it can be sufficiently recognized that not only the above plaintiff himself but also the other plaintiffs in the status relationship as seen above have suffered considerable mental pain due to the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant has a duty to raise money to this point. Furthermore, considering all the circumstances shown in the argument on this case's health room, the circumstance and result of this case's accident, degree of negligence on the plaintiff and the defendant, plaintiffs' age, status status, property degree, career, etc., this is determined to the plaintiff's garden, and 50,000,000,000,000 won and 50,000,000,000,000,000 won shall be paid to the new owner of this case's Kim Jong-soo.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 9, 1982 to full payment. Since the defendant's claim for this case is justified in 7,162,484 won (7,162,484 won + 1,000,000 won) and 50,000 won to the new iron farm owner, each of which is about 200,000 won to the Dong Kim Young-dong, and the part against the defendant's above defendant's damages for delay after each of the above tort is committed, as requested by the plaintiffs, since it is obvious that the copy of this case is delivered to the defendant as requested by the plaintiffs, the part against the defendant's damages for delay exceeds the above 9% per annum under the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the plaintiff's remaining claims for this case are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the part against the plaintiff's damages for delay is dismissed. The part against the plaintiff's remaining part of the above plaintiff's appeal as to the above 9's damages are dismissed.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)