206 Gaz. 14682 Baz. (i)

1. Plaintiff 1

2. Plaintiff 2

3. Plaintiff 3

Korea Fire Insurance Corporation

September 26, 2006

October 31, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 9, 460, 032, 300, 300, 200, and 200,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 5% per annum from March 5, 2005 to October 31, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of the full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant KRW 500,000, respectively, to Plaintiffs 18,032,035, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3

From March 5, 2005 to October 31, 2006, 5% per annum, and 5% from the following day to the date of the full payment.

shall pay 20% per annum the amount calculated at each rate of 20%).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition of the basis of liability (1) (A) 00 is an insurer who operated a motor vehicle in Seoul around 45 on March 5, 2005 at around 08:45 with two-lanes in front of the Sejong Memorial Hall in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, to the jurisdiction of the Korea Forest Service, located in the area of Hong kne Sung Sung Sung Sung Sung Sung Scenic, while opening the crosswalk on the left side from the right side of the proceeding to the left side of the Plaintiff 1, and caused the Plaintiff 1 to suffer injury in the light salt, etc. (2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the content that the Defendant would compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the said vehicle’s death or injury caused by the said vehicle’s accident while the Defendant owns, uses, or manages the said motor vehicle. (3) The Plaintiff is the husband of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is liable for damages caused by the said Plaintiff 21, 31, as the insurer.

B. Limitation on liability

However, the plaintiff 1 also has a yellow on-and-off signal for the vehicle at the time of the accident, and since the pedestrian signal, etc. is not installed separately, it is recognized that he neglected his duty to secure his safety by safely examining the flow of the vehicle. Since the plaintiff 1's error was caused by the accident and the expansion of damage, it is reasonable to limit the scope of the defendant's responsibility to 85% out of property damage, and the remaining amount should be borne by the plaintiff 1.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 2, the gist of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The facts of recognition of lost income (1) and the contents of evaluation (a): Plaintiff 1 left 50 years of age at the time of the above accident as a living female on March 1, 1955. (b) Income: The daily wage of an ordinary person (the daily wage is the unit price of the daily wage from the time of the above accident)

5.4. 52,55 won from the following day until September 4, 2005, 53,090 won, and 55,252 won from the following day, as the Plaintiff seeks, respectively) (c) - 11.5% of the residual disability and labor ability loss rate for a limited period of two years from the date of the above accident (c) - 5% of the 10% loss of 5% per annum from the date of the above accident (c) - V (5%), 5% of the 10% loss of 5% per annum from the date of the above accident - 10% loss of 5% per annum from the date of the above accident - 15% loss of 5% per annum from the date of the above accident (4%) - 15% loss of 5% per annum from the date of the 10% loss of 5% per annum, 5% loss of 5% per annum per annum.

-Suspension period: Loss of 50% for two months from the date of the above accident (the degree of contribution 50% of each aftermath disability shall be considered).

【In accordance with the facts without dispute, significant facts, evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, evidence No. 7-1, and evidence No. 7-2, and the overall purport of the pleading and the overall purport of the pleading to the head of an affiliated hospital of the Gyeonghee University (2). If the monetary assessment of the labor ability lost by the Plaintiff 1 due to the above accident is calculated as the current price at the time of the above accident (Provided, That the income shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and the present price shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but the amount of less than KRW 7,78, 387 won in total ( = 1,149,639, + 1,208, 88 won + 5, 419, and 60 won in total) as follows:

From the date of∑ above-mentioned accident to May 4, 2005: 52,585 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 50 percent ¡¿ 1.9875 = 1,149,639 x September 4, 2005: 53,000 x 22 days x 36% x (as May 9140 - 9140 - 9875) = 1,208,888 won

○ From the following day to March 4, 2007: 55,252 won x 22 days x 36% x ( May 22, 290 - 9140) = 5,419,860 won.

B. The king medical expenses: 204,015 won [=(55,970 won + 248, 620 won + 103, 440 won + 103, and 440 won] ¡¿ Contribution to the expenses incurred by the plaintiff]. The inspection expenses and diagnosis expenses incurred by the plaintiff are deemed inevitable due to the above accident.

【Ground of recognition” No. 6-1, 2, and 3 of the evidence No. 6-1, 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings. The plaintiff 1 asserted that the nursing expenses paid KRW 4,713,60 as nursing expenses for 54 days due to the above accident. Thus, the plaintiff 1's assertion is not acceptable, since there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff needed separate assistance for meals, bath, urine, urine, transfer, etc. in addition to ordinary nursing due to the above accident.

(d) Limitation of liability (1) The ratio of Defendant’s liability: 85% (2): (1) the calculation of lost income: (2) the amount of KRW 7,78,387 + 204, 015 won + 0.85 = 6,785, 041 E. (1) the amount of deduction;

Of the Defendant’s expense 3, 173, 930 won, Plaintiff 1’s contributory portion 1,586,965 won ( = 3,173,930 won x 0.5) and 238,044 won [ = 1,586,965 Won X (1 - 0.85)] to be borne by Plaintiff 1 due to the limitation on liability among the remainders thereof are unjust enrichment by Plaintiff 1, and thus, the amount of Plaintiff 1’s contributory portion is deducted from the Defendant’s claim for return, instead of offsetting the Defendant’s damage claim against Plaintiff 1.

(2) Calculation: Loss of property: 6,785,041 - Amount of deduction (1,586,965 won + 238,04 won) = 4,960,032 won

【Reasons for Recognition】 Entry of evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

(f) The reasons for consolation money (1) : The plaintiffs' age, family relation, degree of Plaintiff 1's injury and post-age disability, treatment process, circumstances and results of the accident, limitation of liability, and all other circumstances shown in the arguments of this case (2).

- Plaintiff 1: 4,50,000 won - Plaintiff 2: 300,000 won - Plaintiff 3: 200,000 won g. 200,000 won

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 1 as damages the amount of KRW 9,460,032 ( = KRW 4,960,032 + KRW 4,500,000 + KRW 300,000, and KRW 200,000 to Plaintiff 3 as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 5, 2005, which is the date of the above accident, until October 31, 2006, which is the date of the sentencing of the Defendant’s liability for payment, until October 31, 2006, and from the next day to the date of the multi-payment, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Go-man