(a) Whether it is possible to use a survivor pension under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State as a basic material for calculating lost earnings due to unlawful acts

(b) Whether the living expenses from the survivor pension as referred to in paragraph (1) above are to be incurred to the remaining life after the expiration of the operating period (affirmative);

(a) Survivor pension under the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Services to the State shall be the same as the purpose of stabilizing the livelihood of beneficiaries and improving their welfare, and as well as the relationship with the family members who depend on their livelihood on the revenues of beneficiaries, the lost income damage suffered by the death of another person due to his/her illegal act shall be included in the loss caused by the impossibility of receiving the pension

B. In calculating the lost income of a deceased person, it is reasonable to view that the cost of living after the expiration of the operating period is appropriated for the benefits if there are certain benefits even after the operating period, even though it is not in the nature of the deduction, it is reasonable to deduct the cost of living from the benefits after the expiration of the operating period. Since the survivor pension under the same Act has the nature of benefits, it is reasonable to view that the cost of living after the expiration of the operating period is deducted from the benefits

Article 763 (Article 393 of Civil Act) Article 12 of the Act on Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to State

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da5105 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1608) (Gong1608) 92Da24622 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3279) 93Da5918,5925 delivered on April 27, 1993 (dong) 91Da890 delivered on August 13, 1991 (Gong191, 2339)

Plaintiff (Appellant-Appellee)

Plaintiff (Appellee) 1 and 2 others, the Daegu General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Young-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na3940 delivered on April 10, 1992

The Plaintiff (Appellant-Appellee)’s appeal and the Defendants’ appeal are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff (Appellant and Appellee)’s grounds of appeal.

In calculating the actual income of the deceased, it is reasonable to view that the living expenses after the expiration of the operating period are appropriated for the benefits if there are certain benefits even after the expiration of the operating period. (See Supreme Court Decision 91Da8890 delivered on August 13, 191) The survivor pension prescribed by the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State has the nature of benefits, and according to the records, the attorney of the plaintiff (Appellant and Appellee) stated that the above survivor pension was used by 1/3 of the income that can be derived from his operation as the living expenses of the above non-party on the first legal date under the premise that the above survivor pension is not eligible for the deduction of living expenses, and that the defendants' attorney did not dispute it on the second legal date for pleading. The purport is not that the above survivor pension is not subject to the deduction of living expenses, but that if it is not known, it does not dispute the fact that 1/3 of the above survivor pension is required for the living expenses.

Therefore, the court below is just in calculating the actual income of the above non-party in the same purport, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise pointed out.

The assertion is groundless.

2. We examine the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

A. On the first ground for appeal

In a damage compensation case due to a tort, if the victim was negligent in causing or expanding damages, it should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages, but the fact-finding or determining the ratio thereof as to the grounds for offsetting negligence is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Meu3062, Apr. 25, 1990; 90Da13383, Mar. 27, 1991; 90Da13383, Apr. 27, 1991). The judgment of the court below based on the evidence of this case is just and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no error of law as pointed out.

The argument is without merit.

B. On the second ground for appeal

Survivor pension under the Act on the Honorable Treatment, etc. of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State, is for the purpose of stabilizing their livelihood and improving their welfare at the same time, and at the same time, it also acts in relation to the family members who depend on their livelihood on their income. As such, the lost income damage caused by the death of another person's illegal act should include losses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da5105, May 10, 1991; 92Da24622, Oct. 27, 1992).

In the same purport, the court below is just to include the above survivor pension as the basis for calculating the lost income, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise pointed out.

In addition, pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 (1) 2 and (2) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State, children among the bereaved family members of soldiers and policemen killed in action can receive a survivor pension under the above Act only to minors unless they have a disability to the extent that they have no ability to live. As such, the plaintiff (Appellant and Appellee) who already reached the age of majority at the time of the accident of this case who died of the above

The argument is without merit.

C. On the third ground for appeal

The court below did not err by citing the claimed amount as it is, in so long as the court below calculated consolation money according to the plaintiffs, taking into account all the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, including the reasons why the defendants were in know-how.

The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff (Appellant and Appellee) and the defendants' appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)