Whether bus guidance forms are authorized as driving assistants under Article 2 (4) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Even if the bus information system has induced the moving of the bus, even if the bus was placed on the bus, the automobile owner is not an driving assistant, and therefore the automobile owner is liable for compensation for damages to the above information system.

Article 2 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant Stock Company

Seongbuk-do Branch of the Seoul District Court (80 Gohap37)

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the scope cited in paragraph 2 below shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 900,723, 3 and 4 each amount of 100,000 won per annum from October 30, 1979 to the full payment.

3. All remaining appeals by plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendant are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances, the part arising between the plaintiffs 1, 2 and the defendant is three minutes, and the remainder is the same plaintiffs' expense, and the part arising between the plaintiffs 3, 4 and the defendant is the cost of the defendant.

5. The parts without declaration of provisional execution in the text of the judgment of the first instance, and the above paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount of KRW 7,820,162 per annum from October 30, 1979 to the full payment of KRW 200,00 per annum from October 30, 1979 to the plaintiff 3 and 4. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount of KRW 3,951,140, KRW 100 per annum from October 30, 1979 to the full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 3,951,140, KRW 100 per annum.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution declaration.

The part of the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. The occurrence of liability for damages;

On October 29, 1979, Nonparty 1, a driver of the Defendant, operated a city bus (vehicle number omitted) owned by the Defendant on or around 14:30 on October 29, 1979, and continued to provide a bus to enter the parking lot of Defendant Company 4 Dong-dong, Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was located at the end of the parking lot for the Defendant company located in Dobong-gu, Seoul, and did not discover Nonparty 2 of the bus guide who was left the above bus, and caused the same person to die with the face of Nonparty 2 with the rear side of the bus at around 17:10 on the same day, there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the statement of evidence No. 1, No. 1, 2 is the parent of Nonparty 2, and Plaintiff 3, 4, his child and his child, and the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the above mental accident, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the motor vehicle accident.

However, according to the result of the examination of the criminal records of the first instance court, it is acknowledged that Non-party 2 viewed that "Mara, Mara" and "Mara" enter another vehicle by sending a water signal in front and rear the above bus and it is possible to recognize the fact that the non-party 2 sees that "Mara, Mara" and the other vehicle enters, and it is hard to see that he does not see his surroundings well, and it is hard to believe that part of Non-party 3's testimony of the party witness non-party 3 is contrary to this, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, the accident of this case is likely to occur concurrently with the above negligence of Non-party 2, but it seems that the degree of negligence does not reach the extent of exemption from the defendant's liability, such circumstance should be considered in determining the limit of the defendant's

2. The scope of liability for damages;

(a) Property damage;

(1) Daily income.

In full view of the purport of arguments Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5-1, 2, 3, and 3-1 of the above Nos. 5-2 and the purport of oral argument No. 3, non-party 2 is a woman living on February 7, 1961 who has remaining 18 years of age and 56 years of average remaining at the time of this accident, and Non-party 2 entered the defendant company on April 1979 and worked as a bus guidance for 3 months prior to the accident, and the average wage for 3 months prior to the accident was 139,602 (143,948 + 131,014)/3 of the above-mentioned No. 400 per month for five months, and there were no special circumstances that the plaintiffs would have worked as an urban worker for 24 days following the date of the accident. The remaining amount of monthly average wage for 30 days of the accident cannot be acknowledged as an urban worker for 24 days of the accident.

(2) A daily retirement allowance;

The facts that the defendant company should pay retirement allowances equivalent to the average wage of 30 days for one year of continuous service to the bus guidance pattern retired under the labor-management agreement are not disputed among the parties. In full view of these facts, the non-party 2 would have suffered losses as a result of his failure to receive retirement allowances for one year of continuous service due to the accident of this case 】 803,191 (143,846 + 143,948 + 131,014) 】 365 days ± 365 days 】 30 days x 10 days of continuous service, and it is clear that the plaintiffs would have sustained losses as a result of his death x 10 years of continuous service due to the accident of this case x 24 years of age from April 1979 to 24 years of age. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs would have sustained losses as of the date of the accident of this case 630 million won after the accident of this case ; and it is clear that the plaintiffs would have suffered losses as of this case 1630.

(3) Funeral expenses

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 asserted that the non-party 2 died and 401,400 won was required as funeral expenses, and thus compensation is also sought. However, according to the Eul evidence 2, the labor office may recognize that the above plaintiffs already paid 401,445 won to the above plaintiffs as funeral expenses based on industrial accident compensation at the labor office, and there is no counter-proof, and the above plaintiffs' assertion is groundless.

(4) Negligence offset, etc.

Therefore, property damage caused by the accident of this case shall be the sum of the loss of the non-party 2's lost income and the loss of the lost retirement allowance. However, in consideration of the non-party 2's negligence above, it is reasonable to determine the amount that the defendant is liable to compensate for as KRW 13,00,000 among them.

However, according to the above Eul evidence 2, it can be acknowledged that the Labor Agency paid 4,460,510 won to the plaintiffs as bereaved family's benefits based on industrial accident compensation, and there is no counter-proof, so if the above property damages are deducted from the above property damages, the amount that the defendant is liable to compensate shall be KRW 8,539,490. The above claim for damages of non-party 2 was jointly inherited to the plaintiff 1 and 2, their parents, one-half of their respective statutory inheritances due to their death. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay 4,269,745 won to each of the above plaintiffs.

(b) consolation money;

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the non-party 2 died of the accident of this case and caused considerable mental pain to the plaintiff's parent, words, and the birth parents, the defendant is responsible for raising money. Thus, considering the circumstances of this case, the damage result, the plaintiffs' age, and all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the plaintiffs' age, status status, etc. based on the evidence mentioned above, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff 1, 2 as KRW 500,000, and KRW 200,000 for each of the plaintiff 3, and 4.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 a civil legal amount of KRW 200,00 per annum from October 30, 1979 to the full payment of KRW 5% per annum, respectively, 4,769,745 (the amount of KRW 4,269,745 in inheritance + the amount of KRW 500,000 in inheritance) and to the plaintiff 3 and 4. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified only within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for this reason. Since the judgment in the first instance court which has different conclusions, it is unfair to revoke the part of the plaintiff's loss which falls short of the above scope of recognition, and the judgment in the first instance is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiff 1, 2, and the defendant are dismissed, and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 95 of the Provisional Execution Act and Article 92 of the Civil Execution Act are applied to the burden of litigation costs as prescribed in Article 95 of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Han-young (Presiding Judge)