Whether the expenses of branch office fees are losses in proximate causal relation with the tort.

The expenses of a branch office fee, i.e., travel expenses, cannot be considered as expenses necessary to hold a funeral, so even if the expenses were paid as the expenses of the branch office fee, they cannot be considered as losses in proximate causal relation with the tort of this case.

Articles 393 and 763 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] 4292 decided March 17, 1960 (Article 763(3)572 of the Civil Act, Article 763(3)572 of the Civil Act, Article 6510 Gaz.31) 63Da804 decided June 2, 1964 (Article 763(22)573 of the Civil Act, Article 763(22)573 of the Civil Act, Article 654 Gaz. 12(135)

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Commercial Transport Corporation

Daegu District Court (81 Gohap1024)

The parts concerning plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 money at the rate of 5 percent per annum from May 1, 1981 to the day of full payment of 8,94,372 won, 5,466,462 won, and each of them.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

All appeals filed by the defendant against the plaintiff 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are dismissed.

Of the litigation costs, the costs of the first and second instances between the plaintiff 1, 2, 3 and the defendant are divided into two parts, and one shall be the defendant's, the remaining one shall be the defendant's, and the costs of appeal against the plaintiff 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 shall be the defendant's expense.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 8,679,116, 4, and 5 each amount of 70,000, 500, 500, 500, and 500 each amount to the plaintiff 6, 7, and 8, and 500,000 each amount from May 1, 1981 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, 5% per annum, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

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

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

All of the plaintiffs' claims against this part 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;

On April 30, 1981, when Nonparty 1, a driver of a car truck with 11 ton new head of the Defendant Company’s (vehicle No. 1 omitted), was driven by the above truck, Nonparty 1, a driver of the above truck for the operation of the Gyeongdong-dong-dong-dong-gun around 22:10 on Apr. 30, 1981, he was on the front side of the above truck at the National Highway of Songcheon-dong-dong, the front side of the vehicle, which was located in the opposite direction to the Young-dong-dong as at the time of the above truck with the front side of the vehicle, the driver of the 11 ton of the above truck. The driver’s 11 ton of the above vehicle was on the front side of the vehicle, and he was on the front side of the driver’s (vehicle No. 2 omitted) and was on the front side of the vehicle, and thus, he was on the part of Nonparty 2’s 3’s body and the sibling of this case.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 2 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's counter

2. Scope of damages.

A. Proceeds of loss of the deceased non-party 3

When both the above evidence Nos. 1 and 5-1, 2, and 6-1, and 2 of evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-1, and 6-2 without dispute over the authenticity, the deceased non-party 3 was a physically healthy male who was born on June 29, 1950, and the age remains 30 years and 10 months at the time of the accident, and the average male life life of Korea at the same age is 37.18 years, the fact that the average male life life life of Korea at the same age is 37.18 years, the wage for male day to rural communities at the time of February 1981 nearest to the point of accident and the date of the closing of argument can be acknowledged, and there is no contrary evidence, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the monthly wage of 50,000 won is required for the living expenses of the deceased non-party 3, and it is evident that our labor for rural use is completed by 25th day per month.

Therefore, if there was no accident, the deceased non-party 3 engaged in rural daily work for at least 290 months from the date of the accident to the date of the completion of the age of 55 (121,025 won x 6,841 won x 25-50,000 won) monthly after deducting his living expenses. As a result, the death of this accident caused the loss of profits equivalent to the above money in order during the above period. Thus, the calculation of the above amount can be made at the present time as of the date of the accident according to the Ho-man Accounting Act deducting the interim interest of 5% per annum, which is obvious that the amount is calculated as 22,978,270 won (121,025 won x 8383109). If the above non-party 3's negligence as seen above, the amount of damages should be determined to be paid by the defendant 208,278,287,298).

B. Plaintiff 1’s property loss

Considering that evidence Nos. 7-2, 3, and 8-2, 8-2, 9, and 7-1, each statement of evidence Nos. 7-2, 8-9, and Gap evidence Nos. 7, the authenticity of which is acknowledged by the testimony of the court below's witness testimony, the plaintiff 1 bears the above witness's testimony as the deceased non-party 3's wife, and all funeral expenses, and 1,055,850 won (320,000 won + 65,000 won + 339,700 won + 324,150 won + 7,000 won + 324,150 won + 7,000 won). Thus, the accident of this case 】 The plaintiff 1 is liable for damages of the deceased's 1,05,850 won, but the amount of damages of the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 4,5850 won.

The plaintiff asserts that in selecting the deceased's place of funeral, 20,00 won was paid with the fees of the branch office, and thus, the plaintiff is also entitled to compensation. However, since the expenses of the plaintiff's assertion as the fees of the branch office are not necessarily required for funeral, it cannot be deemed that the expenses of the plaintiff's assertion were paid as the fees of the branch office, it cannot be deemed as losses related to the tort of this case, and thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for compensation unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the claim for this part is groundless.

(c) Compensation money;

Since the accident of this case caused the death of the deceased non-party 3, the plaintiffs who are in the status quo above are able to receive a considerable amount of mental suffering according to our rule of experience. Thus, the defendant company is responsible for the payment of money. Considering the result of the accident of this case, the degree of negligence of both parties, and various circumstances shown in this argument, the defendant company should pay 1,00,000 won to the deceased non-party 3, and 70,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 50,000 won to the plaintiff 2,2, and 3 respectively, and 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff 4, and 5,000,000 won to the plaintiff 6,7, and 8, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the amount of damages suffered by the deceased non-party 3 due to the above accident is 19,382,616 won (18,382,616 won + 1,000,000 won). However, if the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiffs from the above money is deducted from 2,00,00 won for damages of the deceased non-party 3, the amount of damages is 17,382,616 won (19,382,616-2,00,000 won) (the amount of damages is 19,382,49,692,692, and 60,000 won) to the defendant's 10,000 won and 10,000 won (the amount of damages is 19,49,69,692 won) to the defendant's 20,600 won and 40,000 won (the plaintiff's damages claim shall be 960,74,74,7960,746460, respectively) won.

Judges Seo fixed-term (Presiding Judge) and Park Dong-Jak