(1) Whether the provisions of the Labor Standards Act or the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act exclude the employer's liability for tort

(b) The service period of the Deputy Bus Operator;

(1) Even if the plaintiffs can receive industrial accident compensation or insurance benefits, they may not exclude the defendant company's employees from liability for tort. Since the Labor Relations Commission's examination or arbitration procedure as stipulated in Article 90 of the Labor Standards Act is the pre-trial requirement necessary for the filing of a civil suit against the accident compensation under the same Act, there is no room to apply this case.

(2) The Plaintiff 1’s family environment Dong, taking into account various circumstances, such as remuneration as vice head, can continue to gain more profit than the amount that the Plaintiff 1 could have obtained as the bus vice head at the time of the instant accident, due to the increase of experience and experience in the instant accident.

Article 756 of the Civil Act, Article 90 of the Labor Standards Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant corporation

Busan District Court (66Ga3674)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 700,00, KRW 50,000, and the amount of KRW 50,000 to the plaintiff 2, and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from March 1, 1967 to the full payment.

The remaining claims of the plaintiff et al. are dismissed.

The appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the appeal by the defendant against the plaintiff 2 are dismissed, respectively.

The litigation costs shall be divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and one shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

A provisional execution may be effected on the above paragraph (2).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 1,306,428 won with 1,00,000 won and at the rate of 5% per annum from March 1, 1967 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff et al. shall seek a declaration of provisional execution such as that of the plaintiff et al. shall revoke the part of the original judgment which lost, and the defendant shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, etc. through the first and second trials.

First, the defendant's main safety resistance is examined, and since the provisions on accident compensation or insurance benefits under the Labor Standards Act and the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act excludes the employer's liability against the tort committed by the employee, the defendant company is an enterprise subject to the above Acts, and even if the plaintiff et al. is entitled to accident compensation or insurance benefits, it cannot be denied the plaintiff et al.'s claim for damages to the defendant, who is the employer due to the tort committed by the employee of the defendant company, and it is not possible to deny the plaintiff et al.'s claim for damages, and since the Labor Relations Commission's examination or arbitration procedure under Article 90 of the Labor Standards Act are the exclusive litigation requirement necessary to file a civil lawsuit against the accident compensation under

The following bills shall be examined:

Since evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 3 of the court below's testimony that the non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the evidence Nos. 1 and the testimony of the non-party 4, the non-party 5, and the non-party 6 testimony of the non-party 7, the non-party 7 had its head office in the port area to the non-party 8, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5, and the non-party 8, the non-party 3, the non-party 4, the non-party 5, who tried to remove the non-party 8, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, and the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 5, who was found to have been under the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the defendant 4, the defendant.

Therefore, with respect to the plaintiff 1's claim for the loss from the above medical expenses incurred by the above driver's tort against the defendant, who is the user of the above 25,300 won of the above medical expenses at the time of the above 25,00 won of the above 25,00 won of the above 25,00 won of the above 25,00 won of the above 25,000 won of the above 25,00 won of the 25,000 won of the above 25,00 won of the 25,000 won of the 25 years of age, the defendant's attorney cannot obtain any income after the withdrawal upon the plaintiff's 25,00's 25 years of age, and if there is any income, the plaintiff 1 could not obtain any income after the plaintiff's 25,00's 25,000,000 won of the 7,000 won of the above 20,000.

The plaintiff's testimony and testimony of 6 non-party 4, non-party 9, non-party 10, non-party 10, and non-party 9 and 11 are 23 years old at the time of the above accident, because the plaintiff 1 was 40 years old and 40 won a monthly average of 4,375 won and 150 won a monthly salary and 90 won ad 60 won ad 9.0 won ad 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1966th 6th 6th 1966th 6th 6th 1967.

Next, according to the testimony of the non-party 4 and 11 on the statement of the evidence No. 1 on the consolation money, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff 2 was the mother of the plaintiff 1 and had a mental suffering due to the above tort, and that the plaintiff 2 was threatened with a threat of living due to the plaintiff 1's income from an empty home. In light of the above various circumstances, it is recognized that the consolation money for the plaintiff 1 is a consolation money for the plaintiff 1 and 70,000 won for the plaintiff 2, and the mental suffering for the plaintiff 2 would be caused.

However, in light of the above facts, the plaintiff 1, as the vice head, has the duty of care to assist the above operation of the vehicle and not to operate the accident, and if the accident is caused by negligence that the plaintiff 1 was on board more than the fixed number and did not know to the number of drivers at the point of accident when passing through the accident, it is recognized that the defendant would eventually pay 70,000 won out of the total sum of 843,465 won to the plaintiff 1, and it is reasonable to pay 70,000 won to the plaintiff 2, respectively.

Defendant 1’s attorney asserts that the amount of the insurance benefits already paid or the insurance benefits to be paid in the future by the above accident should be offset within the limit of the amount equivalent to the above compensation as an employee of the Defendant Company who is an insured under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, but there is no evidence to support that such amount has been paid, as seen earlier, it is not in the nature of offset against the above damages. Thus, this assertion is groundless.

Therefore, within the above recognition scope, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 70 million won and 50 million won to the plaintiff 2 and 50 million won with the rate of 5 percent per annum from March 1, 1967 demanded by the plaintiff et al. to the full payment date. Thus, this claim by the plaintiff et al. is justified within the scope of the above recognition scope, and the remainder is just and dismissed. The appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the appeal by the plaintiff 2 against the plaintiff 2 among the appeals by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant et al. among these appeals by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant et al. because the original judgment differs from the original judgment, the appeal by the plaintiff 1 and the appeal by the defendant 2 against the plaintiff 2 cannot be dismissed because it is clear that the original judgment is correct, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 92, Article 93, Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to bear litigation costs and Article 19 (1) of the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Kim Young-ro (Presiding Judge) Park Jong-il Park