Appropriateness of a claim for damages that is premised on a promotion of secondary school teachers

In light of the purport of Article 33 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 10 of the Public Educational Officials Remuneration Regulations, it is difficult to say that secondary school teachers are naturally elevated due to their continuous service.

Article 33 of the Public Educational Officials Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da502 delivered on March 26, 1974 (Article 750(207) 53 of the Civil Act, No. 487 of the Court Gazette 7795 Decided March 26, 197)

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Defendant 1 and one other

Cheongju District Court (80 Gohap30)

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants ordering payment to Plaintiff 1 in excess of the scope cited in paragraph (2) below is revoked and the same Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 1 an amount of 9,535,177 won and an annual amount of 5% from February 12, 1979 to the date of full payment.

3. All appeals filed against the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff 1, such as the remaining appeal by the defendants against the plaintiff 1, are dismissed.

4. All the costs of the lawsuit of the first and second instances arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendants are three minutes. The two parts are identical to the plaintiff and the defendants' respective costs. The costs of appeal against the plaintiffs other than the same plaintiff are assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 1 the amount of KRW 54,010,652, the amount of KRW 1,000,000 per annum from February 12, 1979 to the full payment rate of KRW 5% per annum for each of the Plaintiffs 200,000 and the remaining Plaintiffs.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants 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. Occurrence of liability for damages;

In full view of the facts found in Gap evidence No. 1, which did not dispute the establishment of the first instance trial, the result of the verification of the criminal records and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant 2, who is the driver of the freight truck (vehicle number omitted) on February 11, 1979, operated the above vehicle on February 11, 1979, is jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff 1 to the central separation zone established on the left-hand side of the movement with one other at the time when the plaintiff 1 moved to the National Highway of Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seobuk-gun, Seoul, about 2.30 kilometers of speed at the speed of 45 kilometers of speed, and the plaintiff 2, who was not liable to compensate the plaintiff 1 to the above accident at a speed of 5 meters away from the central separation point of the accident. Thus, the plaintiff 1 was found to be jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff 1 for the damages caused by the above accident at the speed of 4 straight line.

However, according to the evidence above, the plaintiff 1, as a quasi-high speed road with the 4-line line, where the accident place differs in normal speed, and when the vehicle is in poor visibility due to night and night, crossing such a place, it is necessary to thoroughly examine whether safe crosswalks or the vehicle is coming from, and then cross the accident. However, the above plaintiff 1's negligence crossing a place other than the crosswalks under the influence of alcohol without neglecting it, can be recognized that the accident occurred due to concurrent negligence of the above plaintiff. However, the degree of such negligence of the above plaintiff 1 seems to reach the degree of exemption from the defendants' liability for damages, and thus, such circumstances should be considered in determining the limit of the defendant's liability for damages.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

(1) Expenses for future treatment;

According to the result of appraisal of the number of appraiser at the first instance court, the plaintiff 1 is required to wear 50,00 won every three years from May 27, 1980 as of the appraisal date of this case, for the treatment between trauma 50,000, and 30,000 won every six months for the treatment between trauma 5,00 won and the left 65,00 won every six months for the above 6-64,50 won per six months for the treatment between trauma 46,50 won and the left 665,50 won per month for the above 60,500 won. 665,50 won per month for the treatment between trauma 46,50 won and the left 605,50 won for the above 60,506,50 won for the above 67,500 won for the above 60,506,500 won for each of the above expenses.

A person shall be appointed.

(2) Actual income.

In full view of the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 5 without dispute over establishment, Plaintiff 1 was 5 years old and remaining 9 years old and 10 years old and 3 years old and 4 years old due to the above fact that the above 10th anniversary of the date of May 16, 195, and that the above 1st five months old and 4 years old and the above 1st five months old and the above 1st five months old and the average remaining 1st five years old and the 1st five years old and the 1st five years old and the 1st five years old and the 1st five years old and the 1st five years old and the 1st five years old and the 1st five years old and the 1st half year old and the 1st half year old and the 2nd half of the 1st half year old and the 1st half of the 196th anniversary of the 1st half of the 196th anniversary of the 1st half of the 1st half of the 197th term.

Furthermore, as to the amount, the above plaintiff claims the above damages to be incurred monthly in the future at the time of the accident, it is clear that the amount of the loss of the plaintiff's income as an teacher is KRW 34,808,167 [142,333 won 】 268,2891532-23,73470925], and the amount of the income as an urban worker is KRW 20,880,475 [5780 won x 25 days x 70/10 x 230,165120-23,7347925], and the amount of the loss of the plaintiff's income as an urban worker is calculated as KRW 13,927,629,6925].

(1) The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since it is difficult to view the plaintiff as a matter of course to raise a salary and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff is likely to raise a salary as a matter of course in light of the purport of Article 33 of the Public Educational Officials Act and Article 10 of the Public Educational Officials Remuneration Regulations, even though the plaintiff is seeking compensation for lost income based on the remuneration to be increased due to a promotion, on the premise that the plaintiff's continued to work

(3) Negligence offsetting, etc.

Therefore, property damage suffered by the above plaintiff due to the accident of this case shall be deemed to be KRW 16,208,555, which is the sum of each of the above recognition amounts. However, as seen above, the accident of this case is deemed to be 50 percent since it is reasonable to view that the above plaintiff's negligence was concurrent and contributed to the accident of this case. Therefore, the amount to be compensated by the defendants shall be deemed to be KRW 8,104,277.

However, considering the whole purport of pleading in the statement Nos. 1-2, 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of the above plaintiff evidence Nos. 1-2 and 3-3 without dispute in its establishment, it can be acknowledged that the Korean Automobile Insurance Co., Ltd., which was a member of the defendant, paid 434,200 won as compensation expenses for the above plaintiff's damage caused by the accident of this case and 352,00 won as compensation expenses for the above plaintiff's damage. Thus, there is no counter-proof. Thus, among the medical expenses paid by the above company, 217,100 won (4,200 won x 50/100) corresponding to the above plaintiff's negligence among the medical expenses paid by the above company should be exempted from payment by the above company. Accordingly, the above amount should be deducted from the amount that the defendants should compensate for. Accordingly, the defendant's property damage should be deducted from the amount that the defendants should compensate for.

(b) consolation money;

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 1 was suffering from considerable mental distress by not only the same Plaintiff itself but also his parents, siblings, and the rest of the plaintiffs, who were their children, due to the occurrence of the accident in this case without leaving university graduates for a long time, the Defendants are responsible for the above-mentioned mental distress. In light of the circumstance of the accident in this case, the damage result, the plaintiffs' age, occupation, and personal relation, which can be known by the evidence in light of all circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, such as the background of the accident in this case, the degree of both negligence, and the degree of both negligence, it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the Defendants to Plaintiff 1 for 2,00,000, 1,000, and 200,000,000,000, respectively, for each of the remaining plaintiffs.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to plaintiffs 1 9,535,177 won (property damages of KRW 7,535,177 + KRW 2,000,000, and KRW 1,000 for each of them to plaintiffs 2 and 3, and KRW 200,000 for each of the remaining plaintiffs, and KRW 200,000 for each of them, and annual interest rate from February 12, 1979 to full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this case is justified only within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for this reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with respect to the plaintiff 1, since it is so revoked with respect to the part against the defendants in excess of the above recognition limit, the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendants is dismissed by applying Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act as well as Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is without merit.

Judges Lee Han-young (Presiding Judge)