If an employee completes his/her duties and causes an accident during his/her returning home due to the error owned by the employer, whether the employer is liable;

If an employee was employed by another person as an external secretary and went out to and leaves from the employer's office, and the employee completed his/her duties and caused an accident to be out of the office at night, this falls within the category of the accident caused by the employee in connection with the performance of his/her duties.

Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, Article 756 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da428 delivered on June 28, 1977

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant

Daegu District Court of First Instance (76Gahap96)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 459,550 and the amount of KRW 309,550 each to the plaintiff 4, the amount of KRW 828,650, the amount of KRW 569,100 and the amount of KRW 50 per annum from February 29, 1976 to the full payment system.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

(1)The occurrence of liability for damages:

In light of the above evidence Nos. 7 through 13 without dispute, it is difficult for the non-party 1 to write his opinion, written diagnosis, written indictment, and written indictment) and the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 of the trial court and the non-party 3 of the trial witness (excluding the part not trusted in the front) to find out some of the above facts of the non-party 4 to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 4 as non-party 4's non-party 4 as an external secretary, and the defendant employed the non-party 4 as the non-party 6's office building and let the non-party 4 participate in the above affairs of water supply and delivery, etc., and the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's above non-party 6's office building and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3's office building's office m.

(2)The amount of damage:

(a)property damage;

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (each graduation, teacher's certificate, and public educational official's certificate), which are not disputed in the formation, the deceased non-party 5 may recognize the fact that he is male who is 44 years old at the time of the accident on August 27, 1929. The records in Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1) different from these records are deemed to be erroneous in the family register in light of the above evidence, so the above recognition is not hindered, and there is no different objection. The average remaining life of the above non-party 5 years exceeds 55 years old, and the above non-party 5 days can have been operated on the average 25 days of the above labor. The above facts are significant in the members. The records in No. 6-1, No. 2 (O. 1, No. 1, No. 4) without dispute in the establishment of the court below 】 the testimony of the non-party 1 】 The deceased's daily wage of 1, 250.5 months, and 15 days of the deceased's monthly wage of this case.

The money was KRW 1,58,780 [16,375 】 (106725,519-5, 91404863]. However, as seen earlier, when the deceased walk on the road, the above non-party will have a duty of care to safely avoid the movement of the moving vehicle as well as to safely avoid the movement of the moving vehicle when he walk on the road. In light of the above, it is reasonable to determine the amount to be compensated as property damage by the defendant as KRW 1,200,000.

Therefore, the plaintiff 1 is the wife of the above non-party deceased, and the plaintiff 4, the plaintiff 5, the plaintiff 5, and the remaining plaintiffs are the father. Thus, the defendant is obligated to divide the property damage of the above recognition into the plaintiff 4, 450,000 won, 30,000 won to the plaintiff 5, and 150,000 won to the other plaintiffs according to the plaintiff's inheritance cost.

(B) As seen above, the above plaintiffs are the wife of the above non-party deceased. Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that such plaintiffs suffered emotional distress due to the death of the non-party deceased, the defendant is obligated to accept it in money. As seen above, the defendant is obligated to do so. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged as above, the background of the accident in this case, the degree of both parties' negligence, and the degree of each of the evidence No. 5-1 to No. 3 (a certificate of each school) without dispute over the establishment, and all of the circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, such as the plaintiffs' family, career, academic background, and degree of property, which are recognized by the intention of Non-party 1's testimony and change of the non-party 1, the defendant should pay 200,000 won as consolation money, and 50,000 won for each of the remaining plaintiffs.

(C) However, the defendant argued that the non-party 4 paid 800,000 won to the plaintiffs as part of the compensation for damages in this case, but the non-party 4's testimony is difficult to believe, and there is no other recognized data. The above argument is groundless.

(3) If so, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 1,50,00 won each sum of the above recognition's property damage and consolation money to the plaintiffs 1,50,000 won, 50,000 won each of them to the plaintiffs 4, and 200,000 won each of them to the remaining plaintiffs, and damages for delay in accordance with the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 29, 1976 to the full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this case is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed because the judgment below is just, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation expenses that are dismissed pursuant to Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges fixed right (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung