Degree of the duty of care to the driver of the second expressway without permission.

In general, the driver of an expressway shall drive the vehicle at the expectation that no unauthorized crossing would normally occur. Thus, in the event of an accident, the driver's negligence is not attributable to the driver's fault. However, even if the site of the expressway is about 100 meters long at the time of the accident, if the driver shows that the victim is walking slowly on the side of the road at the front of at least 10 meters wide, and if there is a case where the above expressway is a second-line road where there is a case where the driver crosss the road slowly, the driver of the expressway in such case shall drive the vehicle by looking at his her attitude while soundinging the horn and lowering the speed, so if the accident occurred due to the accident, the driver shall also be negligent.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Jeonbuk Passenger Transport Corporation

Gwangju District Court (82 Ghana1057)

Of the part against the defendant in the original judgment, the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 3,522,30 won in 3,522,300 won in 3,522,4,5,6,7, and 8 with 100,000 won in 3,52,300 won in 3,4,5,6,7, and each of them shall be dismissed, and each of the corresponding plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts of the costs of lawsuit by both the first and second instances, and two of them shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remaining one by the defendants.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 the amount of 14,256,379 won, plaintiffs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 each at an annual rate of 500,000 won and the amount at an annual rate of 5% from February 23, 1982 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be 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 February 21, 1982, the non-party 1 was the driver of a direct bus (vehicle number omitted) owned by the defendant company and the non-party 1 was the father of the deceased non-party 2 and the plaintiff 2 was the mother of the deceased and the mother of the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the deceased's automobile accident compensation law, and the defendant was not liable for damages incurred by the plaintiff 1's accident, since the plaintiff 1 was the mother of the deceased non-party 2, and the plaintiff 2 was the mother of the deceased and the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the deceased's automobile accident compensation law, and the plaintiff 1 was the deceased's own owner of the above bus at a point of 140.2 meters of the Masung-gun-gun, 18:15 on the following day.

However, the defendant argued that the accident of this case was caused only by the negligence of the deceased who was crossing on the expressway, and that it was not responsible to the defendant since there was no structural defect or malfunction in the above bus, and therefore, the driver of the vehicle driving on the expressway is prohibited from crossing without permission. Therefore, if the accident occurred while crossing without permission, it cannot be caused by the driver's negligence, or it cannot be applied even in general and special circumstances. Meanwhile, considering the testimony of the non-party 1 as a result of the examination of the criminal record of the court below, although the above accident occurred on the expressway, the non-party 1 showed that the non-party 2 and the above non-party 2 were on the side of the road at the time of the accident, and the non-party 1 appears to have been on the road side of the road at the time of the accident, and the non-party 1 did not have any error in crossing the road at the time of the accident, and thus, the defendant's allegation that the above accident could not easily be seen as being driven by the non-party 1 as the above road.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

In full view of the above evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 3-2 of evidence Nos. 2, evidence Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 (name cards and contents thereof), and evidence Nos. 4 (resident registration cards), the above non-party deceased was physically healthy who was 21 years old at the time of the accident, and his average remaining life expectancy was 45.31 years, and the above deceased was enrolled in the military on Dec. 16, 1980 and was serving military service until the death of the accident of this case. The above deceased's average remaining labor wages in rural communities around February 1982, the time of the accident of this case were 1982, and there are no other objections to the facts that there is no other reason to believe that the above non-party's average remaining life expectancy was 45.31 years old at the time of the accident, and there is no other dispute between the deceased and the above parties until the date of the accident of this case.

Therefore, without the accident of this case, the deceased could have been engaged in the daily work for rural communities after he completed his military service, and the net income for one month of the deceased who deducted his living expenses shall be 131,216 won (=7,873 won x 25-7,873 won x 25 x 1/3 won ; hereinafter the same shall apply) so the above deceased shall be 391 months from December 16, 1983 to 55 years of age (less than the time of the accident of this case) until 391 won for 131,216 won for each month after he completed his military service. Accordingly, the amount of the above deceased's net income for 131,216 won after deducting his living expenses shall be calculated as at the time of the accident of this case x 1370 won x 294 x 2944 x 294 ; if the defendant calculated the amount of the victim's losses x 2947 x 304 ,2947 x 294 .27 x .294 .27 .27 x .294 .27 .244.

(b) consolation money;

In light of the empirical rule that not only the above party but also his parents, siblings, and the plaintiffs, who suffered severe mental pain due to the death of the above deceased, due to the accident of this case, the defendant is obligated to take care of the above party. Thus, in light of all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case such as the deceased's age, living standard, family situation and the degree of the defendant's property, the degree of negligence of the deceased in the accident of this case, etc., the defendant should pay 700,000,000 won to the above deceased, and 30,000,000,000 won to the plaintiff 3,4,5,6,7, and8,000 won, and paid 10,000,000 won to the above deceased, and it is reasonable that the plaintiff 1 should receive 30,000,000 won as consolation money from the defendant, and thus, the defendant has no dispute between the plaintiff and the plaintiff 1.

(c) Inheritance relationship;

The above deceased's right to claim compensation against the defendant for lost profit and consolation money amounting to 6,44,600 won (=actual profit 5,744,600 + consolation money + 700,000 won) due to the death of the deceased, the plaintiff 1 and 2, who are co-inheritors, have succeeded to each money of 3,222,30 won (=6,44,600 won x 1/2) according to their shares in inheritance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 3,222,30 won with 3,522,300 won with 3,522,300 won with 3,522,300 won with 3,422,300 won with 3,522,300 won with 300 won with 3,4,5,6,7,000 won with 3,5,7,000 won with 1,00 won with 1,00 won with 5% annual interest rate from February 23, 1982 to each full payment period. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are unfair, and the defendant's appeal against 3,4,5,6,7,000 won with 3,7,000 won with 3,000 won with 3,000 won with 3,000 won with 3,000 won with 3,000 won with 2.

Judges' interference with deliberation (Presiding Judge) wills