208Na9861 Compensation for Damages

(m) Other 2

BUBE 1

Federation of National Bus Transport Business Cooperatives

Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu 1031-8

Representative Director Kim Jong-won

Daegu District Court Decision 2007Gadan2997 Decided September 30, 2008

April 15, 2009

May 20, 2009

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, cancellation of the part against the plaintiffs, which orders payment below.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,758,074 won, 10,367,816 won, 50,000 won from June 4, 2007 to May 20, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The remaining claims extended in the plaintiffs' remaining appeals and the trial of the plaintiffs 100 are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 1/5 of the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiffs, the remainder is borne by the Defendant, and 3/5 of the part resulting from the participation is borne by the Plaintiff Intervenor, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4.The portion of the payment under paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu with 104,876,866 won, the plaintiff's 14,334,770 won, and the plaintiff's 14,370 won to the new head of Si/Gun/Gu, and the 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff's new head of Si/Gun/Gu with 5% per annum from June 4, 2007 to March 10, 2009, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (the plaintiff's 10,000 won was reduced in the trial, and the plaintiff's 0,000 won was extended to the plaintiff's 1).

1. Whether liability for damages arises;

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the statements and images of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, evidence Nos. 6-1 through 4, evidence Nos. 1 through 9-1 to 7. 10-4, and evidence Nos. 1 through 1-8. 9, and witness Nos. 1-9, witness Nos. 1 and 1-2, witness No. 1-2, witness No. 1-2, witness No. 1-2, witness No. 1-2

(1) Nonparty 1, on June 4, 2007, owned by 70% of the passengers of Bright Co., Ltd. around 16:44, 2007

The driver's operation of the internal bus (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant bus") led the death side of the school in front of the school, such as the death side of the deceased and the front side of the death side of the Gyeongjin-gun, the death side of the deceased and the front side of the school, which led directly to approximately 25 km from the west side of the city, depending on the side of the west.

(B) At this point, safety signs, such as children’s protection zones, are installed between two intersections of the front intersection of the bamboo side elementary school, etc., and housing and commercial buildings are concentrated. There is a stop line on both sides of the intersection, and is connected to a small decline length of the gradient of about 15-20 degrees with the left side of the running direction of the Defendant bus. On the other hand, even if one ton of the cargo is parked on the lower part of the lower part of the driver’s seat, the upper part and lower part of the downway can be seen well.

(3) In such a case, a person engaged in bus driving has the duty of care to safely pass along the intersection after checking whether children have entered the intersection through which bicycles and the left-hand side of the bus, by properly examining whether they have entered the intersection.

(4) However, by negligence, without neglecting the above duty of care, this was tried to make a fall down on the back side of the Defendant bus, and it did not discover the self-driving of the Non-Party Bright (Y, 9 years old) who entered the intersection because it was attempted to make a fall down on the part of the front box of the Defendant bus, without going through the speed of speed, and immediately left as it was, and then entered the intersection, and instead did not discover the driving of the Non-Party Bright (Y, 9 years old) who was on the left side of the Defendant bus, left the front part of the bicycle and left the front part of the bicycle on the back side of the bicycle, thereby getting the Plaintiff’s door (Y, 9 years old) go beyond the road, and thereby getting a light on the back wheels of the Defendant bus, thereby resulting in a loss of the right-hand pipe, open door, etc.

(5) The Plaintiff’s door ○○ and New Bright are the Plaintiff’s parents, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the parents of Bright, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s passenger on the Defendant bus.

B. Determination

According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred concurrently between the negligence of Lee O, who is the driver of the defendant bus, and the negligence of Lee O, which is the bicycle driver, and therefore, the Lee O and Lee Duale joint tort are jointly and severally liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the

C. Determination on the claim for exemption

(1) The defendant's assertion

Even if 00, prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, the bicycle driving of the BBS is found in advance to proceed on the left side before the occurrence of the instant accident, it was difficult for bicycles to predict that they would be shocking the instant bus by blocking the opposite lane, i.e., the central point of the road, and thus, it is also impossible to expect such circumstances, and drive the instant bus. Rather, the instant accident is nothing more than the opposite line with the Plaintiff’s bus, without stopping or bypassing the bicycle driving, and it was caused by the unilateral negligence of the BBS and the Defendant’s liability should be exempted.

(2) Determination

In full view of the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial and the results of the on-site verification of the party hearing, the right to Bilateral, at the time of the accident, tried to get off the Plaintiff’s door and make a bypass the way to prevent the Plaintiff from getting on the rear side of the bicycle, but one ton of the cargo vehicles selling the fruit on the road is blocking. (C) The fact of collision with the Defendant bus can be acknowledged by entering the intersection without changing the direction to the right right at the speed.

However, as recognized earlier, the place of the accident in this case is where housing and commercial buildings are concentrated along the front three-distance intersection, and both of them are installed at the intersection, and since it is connected to the left side side of the bus in the direction of the crossing, the driver of the defendant bus, even if the driver of the defendant bus proceeds from the intersection within the restricted speed depending on its own lane while driving along the intersection, it is possible for children to enter the intersection in such a manner as much as the passage of the bicycle is able to enter the intersection in the above decline, and it seems that there was a duty of care to safely pass along the intersection after checking whether there was a bicycle, and in addition, the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition, i.e.,, the driver's duty of care to safely prevent the passage of the bus from entering the intersection as the front left side of the bus at the point of the accident, such as the driver's right side of the bus, even if the cargo is parked on the lower side of the intersection, and it is more likely that the driver's right side of the bus in this case can be seen at the bottom.

Therefore, the defendant's state that the accident in this case occurred solely due to the unilateral negligence in the Balebbal of Balebal, is not accepted, since the accident in this case occurred only by the unilateral negligence in this case, as well as by driving within the restricted speed according to his own lane and driving it on the left side at a place where the emergence of children is anticipated, and thereby preventing the accident from being able to safely drive it.

D. Limitation on liability

However, even if we were to get off the way to get off on the back of the bicycle, even if we were to get off the bicycle on the back of the bicycle, upon being aware of the fact that the plaintiff 2 was to get off the way to get off the bicycle on the back of the bicycle, the plaintiff 2 was trying to get off the bicycle by getting off the bicycle, and the plaintiff 2 was unable to properly manipulate the Hand and balke without changing the speed and weight in the back of the bicycle, and the above way is going off to the intersection, and the above way is a place where the method of cutting off the bicycle at a rapid speed, so it would be difficult to get off the bicycle at a speed of the two children, and the above bicycle was small in size on the front side of the bicycle, and the two children were not able to get off the bicycle as an elementary school grade 4, so even if we did not have been able to get off the bicycle, it is in violation of the principle of equity and good faith of the plaintiff 2 and the plaintiff 2's liability due to the plaintiff 2's negligence.

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, all shall be as shown in the attached calculation sheet (Provided, That less than a month for the convenience of calculation shall be included in the side on which the appraised value is less than the won, the amount below the won shall be discarded, and the current provisional calculation shall be governed by the simple interest rate which deducts the intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month at the time of the accident of the damage, and it shall be excluded that we do not separately state among our arguments).

(a) Actual income:

(a) Income amount: The unit price of an ordinary urban wage;

(B) Maximum working age: from 20 to 60 years of age;

(c) Rate of the loss of labor ability: 1: 21% (afterwards due to restrictions on the exercise of an adequate attendance); and

For example, as an outdoor worker, permanent loss)

(2) Inscarcitys: 5% (insanes No. 14-4 of the State Compensation Act, the State Compensation Act).

of the head of the depository institution may be seen as a 'recovered' of the head of the depository institution

(3) Combined calculation: 24.95%

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 12 and 13, and court of first instance

As a result of the physical assessment of the Estol Hospital (Stol, Estol, Estopology).

The purport of the whole

(d) Calculation: 74,154,866 won;

B. The future treatment costs: 14,292,727 won (or 2,00 won from the date of the closing of the argument in this case by the plaintiff in the light of convenience);

In the latter half of June 15, 2009, the reflective malute which requires KRW 15,722,000,000.

It shall be deemed to have been enforced, and the cost at the time of the accident shall be calculated)

[Reasons for Recognition] The Korean Supreme Court of the first instance: The result of the physical examination commission of the sexual surgery; the change

The purpose of the whole theory

(c) Expenses for medical treatment: 12,334,770 won (the expenses for the lease of medical expenses by the plaintiff door-○○○○, KRW 5,169,70, and equipment for medical treatment;

For use 7.165,00 won in total 12,334,770 won

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 8-1. 2. 3, each of the statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

(d) Limitation of liability: The defendant's liability ratio of 80%;

(e) consolation money;

(1) Reasons for consideration: The plaintiffs' age, family relationship, background and result of the accident of this case, and negligence

- Degree, degree and degree of disability, and other circumstances shown in the proceedings of this case

, etc.

(2) The amount determined;

① The Plaintiff’s Dobry: 5 million won

② The Plaintiff’s door ○○ and New Bilateral: KRW 500,000, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's 75,758,074 won (the daily income + the future treatment expense after limitation of liability) against the plaintiff's 10,367,816 won (the property damage (the king treatment expense) after limitation of liability + consolation money + 500,000 won for the plaintiff's new Twealty and each of them, which are the date of the accident of this case, it is reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation from June 4, 2007 to May 20, 2009, which is the date of this decision, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 20, 2009, which is the date of the decision of this case, and the next day from the following day.

The plaintiffs' claims in this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit, since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, it is revoked by accepting the plaintiffs' appeal, and it is ordered to pay the above amount to the defendant, and the remaining claims extended in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of original instance are dismissed as they are without merit. The remaining claims extended in the judgment of the plaintiffs' remaining appeal and the judgment of the court of original court of original judgment are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim chan (Presiding Judge)

Park Ho-ho

Permitted Districts