(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.9.7선고 2013가합18908 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 75,060,038 won, 8,374,700 won to the plaintiff C, 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff D, 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff E, and 5% per annum from December 24, 2012 to September 7, 2016, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 179,545,558 won, 21,241,000 won, 10,000 won to the plaintiff D, 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff E, and 5% per annum from December 24, 2012 to the date of the pronouncement of the judgment in this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

(a) Relations between parties;

1) The Defendant is the executor who performed G Creation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) in the Filwon located in Busan District, Busan District.

2) Plaintiff A is a person who suffered an automobile fall accident at the construction site above, and Plaintiff C is the father of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff D’s mother, and Plaintiff E’s partner.

B. Circumstances of the instant accident

1) On December 23, 2012, around 17:30 on December 23, 2012, Plaintiff A: (a) driven a H SP car owned by Plaintiff C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and sought a camping site located near the instant construction site; (b) fell below the end of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”) while entering and operating a two-lane from the instant construction site to the end of the road (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff A suffered from an injury to closed livers, etc. due to the instant accident.

3) The end of the road of the instant accident site is about 6m 80m high compared to the neighboring land. At the time of the instant accident, the instant accident site did not have a drums or protective walls, etc. to prevent fall, and there was no warning board, etc. to inform the risks of fall. There was no facility or signboard, etc. to prevent entry into the instant construction site even at the entrance of the instant construction site. As a result of the relevant criminal litigation, the Defendant’s employee, who was the manager of the instant construction site, was a manager of the instant construction site, did not have a drums around the instant construction site, or installed a blocking screen, etc. to prevent entry of vehicles, etc. without taking such occupational safety measures as required to prevent falling into the neighboring land even if vehicles, etc. enter the construction site, and caused Plaintiff A to suffer injury by leaving the site as a result of leaving the construction site, without taking such measures as above, the Defendant’s employees, who were the manager of the instant construction site, was sentenced to a fine of up to 2010 U.S.14.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul's records or images, the result of on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages and limitation on liability;

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the end part of the road at the accident site of this case has a defect in the construction and maintenance of the road of this case since the end part of the road of this case is more than about 6m 80m high than the adjoining land. Thus, in order to prevent the accident that the vehicle operating the road of this case has fallen down by backing, it is necessary to install a warning board, etc. to inform the risks and install a warning board, etc. or install a facility or a signboard to prevent the vehicle from entering the site of this case. However, it is reasonable to deem that the above facility of this case has a defect in the construction and maintenance of the road of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case as the occupant

B. Limitation on liability

However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the point of accident in this case was found that the plaintiff Gap neglected the duty of care in advance despite the fact that the G Creation Project site, and that the above mistake of the plaintiff Gap contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damage. Therefore, the defendant's liability is limited to 70% in consideration of the above negligence of the plaintiff A.

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Loss caused by loss;

(i) the basic facts

(1) Gender and date of birth: Kborn (which remains 24 years old and 22 months old at the time of an accident).

Maximum working age: December 31, 2047, when he/she reaches 60 years of age.

③ The monetary assessment of occupation and operating capacity is deemed capable of being operated for the 22th day from December 23, 2012, which was the date of the instant accident, until December 31, 2047, the Plaintiff’s 60 years of age, and it is deemed that the daily average wage of an ordinary worker employed in the urban daily wage is a basic income. The calculation of the lost income of the Plaintiff A is based on the daily average wage of an ordinary worker.

(4) Ratio of loss of labor ability.

From December 23, 2012 to June 3, 2013: 10% (in the case of the accident of this case, the period of hospitalization) of the Plaintiff A is recognized as having received hospital treatment for 163 days in total from July 3, 2013 to July 27, 2013. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that there was no damage to the victim’s ability to receive treatment during the period of 10% (from December 23, 2012 to June 3, 2013, the period of 200 to 163 days after the date of the accident of this case). Meanwhile, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, it is recognized that there was no damage to the victim’s body during the period of 11, 16-2, 17-40, and 41, respectively, to the extent that there was damage to the Plaintiff’s body during the period of 163rd Hospital.

In this case, according to the results of the physical examination commission for the head of the Busan University Hospital division (m) of this court, the appraisal doctor is deemed to lose the labor ability of 15% in consideration of the following factors: (a) although it is deemed that the appraisal appraiser lost the labor ability of 15% in light of the following factors: (b) it is difficult to apply the appraisal appraisal rate by recognizing the excessive loss rate in comparison with the loss rate for other obstacles; (c) reflects after inserting the engine insertion (15cm); (d) reflects and booms (14cm, 10cm x 10cm x 2cm x 8cm x 2cm x 8cm x 2cm x 2cm x 2cm ccm x 2cm cm) of the Plaintiff’s 12th State Compensation Act; and (d) it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s 15% disability in light of the gender and age of the Plaintiff’s A, the size of his work and the position of the Plaintiff’s 5cm operation in the A.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-13, 16, Gap evidence 16-2, Gap evidence 2-2, and Gap evidence 24 (including additional numbers), the result of the physical examination commissioned to the director of Busan University Hospital on July 3, 2014 and the director of Dongia University Hospital on the director of Busan University Hospital, the purport of this court's significant facts, empirical rules, and the whole arguments

2) Calculation: 31,863,886 won (the particulars of its tax shall be as listed below; 5/12 per month shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident in accordance with the fractional interest reduction method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 31,863,886 won (the particulars of its tax shall be as listed below. The period shall be calculated on a monthly basis as a principle, and the amount below the won shall

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Medical expenses: 56,773,660 won (=30,221,480 won + 26,52,180 won)

1) Anthrasium treatment costs: In full view of the evidence No. 30,221,480 won 14 through 21, evidence No. 17-1 through 4, 11 through 39, 42 through 80, evidence No. 18-1 through 7, evidence No. 20-1 through 4, and evidence No. 18-1 through 7, and the results of physical examination conducted by the head of the Busan University Hospital, the head of the East University Hospital, the head of the East University Hospital, and the head of the High University, and the purport of the entire pleadings, Plaintiff A spent medical treatment costs of treating the inner part of the instant accident, 30,21,480 won in total, from December 23, 2013 to January 6, 2015.

Plaintiff A also sought payment of KRW 3,200,930,00 for medical expenses and transportation expenses for the above treatment at Samsung Seoul Hospital. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the removal operation, such as the training of dynasium in the dynasium conducted by the Seoul Tyna Hospital, as the treatment related to the instant accident. Therefore, Plaintiff A’s above assertion is difficult to accept.

2) Future treatment costs: 26,52,180 won (=23,235,639 won + 938,227 won + 2,378,314 won): 23,235,639 won

Plaintiff A needs to provide treatment to radars after an operation, and the expenses incurred therein are 27,303,924 won (i.e., operating expenses, etc. + 26,050,000 won + 1,253,924 won (i.e., opening expenses). Thus, for the convenience of calculation, it shall be deemed to have been disbursed at once on July 21, 2016, on the day following the date of the closing of argument in this case, and shall be calculated at the same time as of December 242, 2012, which is after the date of the accident in this case, and then at the same time, KRW 23,235,639 as indicated below.

A person shall be appointed.

E510

(b) Dentals: 938,227 won;

Plaintiff A needs to perform medical care in the future to check to the right-hand side of the refrigeration of the refrigeration of the refrativity on the right-hand side of the instant accident, and the expenses to be incurred therefrom are KRW 1,102,50 (i.e., the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refratation of the refrativity of the instant accident, and the expenses to be incurred therefrom are KRW 1,102,500,00.

A person shall be appointed.

Schop dump

TR, 2BES,

Plaintiff A requires mental drugs and psychological treatment once a week for the next one year, and the expenses incurred therein are 237,397,397 won per month (=54,634 won per week + 10,464 won + 44,170 won per day: 7 days): X (365 days: 12 months following the date of the closing of the instant argument and less than KRW 365): As such, Plaintiff A shall be deemed to have spent the said expenses for one year from July 21, 2016 to December 24, 2012 after the date of the instant accident, and shall be deemed to have been 2,378,314 won as listed below.

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, the result of the court's commission of physical examinations to the Head of Busan National University Hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

(i) the period and extent of the opening;

The Plaintiff asserts that, during a total of 223 days from December 23, 2012 to July 27, 2013, which is the date of the instant accident, Plaintiff A needs to open one adult guardian on the basis of eight hours per day during a total of 223 days from August 21, 2014 to August 26, 2014.

In light of the facts that Plaintiff A was hospitalized on July 3, 2013 through July 23, 2013, 2013, and received hospitalized treatment for the purpose of removing 1 to 20 days from the date of the instant accident, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff A was hospitalized on 1 to 3 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff A was hospitalized on 1 to 20 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff B was hospitalized on 1 to 3 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff B was hospitalized on 1 to 4 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff B was hospitalized on 20 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff B was hospitalized on 1 to 3 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff B was hospitalized on 20 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff C was hospitalized on 1 to 3 days from the date of the instant accident; Plaintiff C’s 1 to 23 days from the date of the instant injury of Plaintiff C’s family members; and Plaintiff C’s 1 to 2.

2) Calculation: 12,133,938 won and nursing costs during the period from March 7, 2013 to July 23, 2013, which were after the date of the instant accident, shall be 12,13,938 won as listed below, if counting at the present price as of July 24, 2012, which was after the date of the instant accident.

A person shall be appointed.

D. Limitation on liability

(i)liability ratio: 70 percent;

2) Calculation: 70,540,038 won = = 10,771,484 won [i.e., lost income of 31,863,886 won + Medical treatment expenses of 56,773,660 + nursing expenses of 12,13,938 won] ¡¿ 0.7, and 0.7

(e) Mutual aid;

According to Gap evidence No. 8-3, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff Gap received 15,480,000 won as non-life insurance in relation to the accident of this case from the interesting country fire marine insurance, the insurer of the vehicle of this case. If the plaintiff deducts the above 15,480,000 won out of the 70,540,038 won as property damage of the plaintiff, the 55,060,038 won (=70,540,038 won - 15,480,000 won).

(f) consolation money;

1) Grounds: The background of the occurrence of the instant accident, degree of injury, Plaintiff A’s age, family relationship, and all other circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case

2) Decision amount: Plaintiff A 20 million won, Plaintiff C, and D 5 million won, Plaintiff E 1 million won, and Plaintiff C’s property damages.

Plaintiff C purchased the instant vehicle at KRW 28,721,00 in early December 2012, and registered the instant vehicle on December 11, 2012. On December 23, 2012, where approximately 10 days passed thereafter, the fact that the instant vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident, the fact that the Plaintiff sold the said vehicle at KRW 2,50,00,000, does not conflict among the parties, or that according to the evidence No. 7-1 and No. 7-2, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 26,221,00 (= KRW 28,721,00 in the instant accident - KRW 2.54,70 in the vehicle purchase price - KRW 2.5 million in the vehicle sale price - KRW 18,354,70 in the Defendant’s liability ratio (=26,21,000 in the vehicle sale price x KRW 7,000, KRW 3084,709,7300.

(h) Sub-determination

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 8,374,70 to the Plaintiff, KRW 75,060,038 (i.e., KRW 55,060,000 + KRW 20 million + KRW 3,374,700) (i.e., KRW 5 million + KRW 3,374,700), KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff, KRW 1 million for consolation money, and KRW 1 million to the Plaintiff E after the date of the instant accident, as sought by the Plaintiffs, to dispute on the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform the obligation from December 24, 2012 to September 7, 2016; and KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act until September 7, 2016; and KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' name is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.