The case holding that even if there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the urban bus in the situation where a pedestrian who was on the center line of the crosswalk was negligent in temporarily suspending or unsatising for the protection of pedestrians before the accident, such negligence is related to the accident, in case where the driver of the urban bus was negligent, even though he was not negligent in the situation where the driver was on the part of the urban bus who is going to go to the opposite

Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant Stock Company

Daejeon District Court Decision 9Na1739 delivered on August 13, 1992

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 52,054,420 won and 50,852,500 won and 3,000,000 won and 50,852,500 won to the plaintiff 3, and 4 respectively, 5% per annum from February 2, 1992 to the date of a sentence of the original judgment, and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

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

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) At around 20:00 on February 2, 1992, Nonparty 1 driven a cargo truck owned by Co-Defendant 1 of the lower judgment with one ton of the freight (vehicle number omitted), and driven the first line of the second line road in front of the building site in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon (Seoul 4th Line), with 40 km in front of the road, and Nonparty 2 driven the urban bus owned by the Defendant at a speed of about 40 km in front of the road, and driven the front line of the road at a speed of 40 km in front of the road. Nonparty 3 stopped in front of the above road, with the front line of the road, with 4 km-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong.

(2) The Plaintiff 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased, and the Plaintiff 3 and 4 are their siblings.

(3) Thus, the defendant company is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case that occurred during operation as the operator of the above city bus, unless there are special circumstances.

(Evidence)

The evidence No. 1-1 (No. 2 (No. 2), the evidence No. 3-2 (Motor Vehicle Register), the evidence No. 4 (Death Certificate), the evidence No. 10 (Documents of Indictment), the evidence No. 11-6 (Report of Actual Statement), the evidence No. 11-7 (Report of Investigation), the 8 (Report of Personal Examination), the 11, 21 (Protocol of Examination of Suspect), the plaintiff 3's personal interrogation results, and the whole purport of oral argument.

(b) Whether to exempt and limit liability;

(1) At the time of the accident, the Defendant asserts that, when Nonparty 2 was driving the above bus at the time of the accident, the above deceased was stopped on the central part of the road and gave way for the city bus driver to proceed first, and Nonparty 2, the driver of the city bus, who is the driver of the city bus, was shocked to the freight truck on which the deceased was going on the opposite line, and was expected to move to the upper part of the running car line of the city bus and did not have a duty of care to safely drive the bus. Therefore, the Defendant asserts that there is no liability for damages to the purport that there is no proximate causal relation between the negligence of the non-party 2 and the accident that did

(2) Therefore, examining the circumstances of the instant accident is as follows.

At the time of the above accident, the deceased, along with the plaintiff 3, started crossing the above crosswalk because it was not a vehicle that passed around the crosswalk at the time of reporting the departure of the above city bus operated by the non-party 2 at the bus stops near the crosswalk at around about 200 meters after the end of the above crosswalk. However, around the time when the deceased moved around the center line of the crosswalk, the above bus stops at the center line of the crosswalk and went through around about 30 km without speed. Accordingly, the above bus was stopped and passed through by the above bus. At that time, the deceased's truck, which was close to the rear line of the deceased, was used as the rear wheel of the above city bus that the deceased passed through the crosswalk and died.

(3) A crosswalk is installed for the safety of pedestrians crossing the road (Article 10(1) of the Road Traffic Act). Since the priority of the vehicle is more than that of the vehicle on the crosswalk, the driver of any motor vehicle has the duty of care to temporarily stop or slowly stop when the pedestrian passes the crosswalk and not obstruct the passage (Article 48 subparag. 3 of the same Act). Therefore, as the driver of the above bus, Nonparty 2, who is the driver of the above bus, was driven by the driver of the above truck while driving the vehicle with the above truck, was driven toward the wheels of the bus bus in the operation of the above truck, even if it was impossible to avoid the situation between the above truck and the traffic of the above deceased, he could not avoid the traffic on the crosswalk. Such mistake was caused by the accident in light of the circumstances of the above accident, and therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

(4) Meanwhile, in crossing the above crosswalk without signal as the Deceased, there is negligence on the part of the vehicles passing around the crosswalk for their safety. The deceased’s negligence also caused the instant accident, but it is not sufficient to exempt the Defendant from liability. However, it is reasonable to consider it in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, but it is reasonable to view it as 10% in light of the above facts.

Therefore, the defendant's liability against the above deceased and his family members is limited to the remaining 90% portion except for the above negligence ratio.

In calculating the defendant's liability, the defendant asserts that as the operator of the freight truck above, the ratio of the deceased's negligence should be calculated higher than the ratio of the deceased's negligence to the co-defendant 1 of the court below, the joint tortfeasor of the accident in this case.

However, in light of the above circumstances, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted as it does not seem to have any reason to view the deceased's negligence ratio differently from the above recognition.

(Evidence)

As above, 'A' is as follows.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The lost income loss equivalent to the monetary total value of the lost capacity of the deceased non-party 3 lost due to the instant accident is KRW 77,19,840.

This is based on the following (1) results calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident in accordance with the Hofman Accounting Act, which deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, as follows:

(1) Facts of recognition

(A) Gender: Date of birth of female: December 1, 1973

Age (at the time of an accident): about 58 years of age, 18 years of age;

(b) Place of residence: Residence of Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-dong at the time of an accident;

(c) Monetary assessment of operating capacity: 482,500 won per month multiplied by the 25th day of monthly average monthly wage rate of 19,300 won per day for an ordinary worker in 192, an importer who can obtain by engaging in urban daily labor (=19,300 won x 25 days)

(d) Operating Period: from December 1, 1993 to December 25, 1993, until the end of 59 years of age; and

(e) Cost of living: 1/3 (no dispute exists) of revenues;

(Evidence)

The evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3 (each certified copy of resident registration), the evidence No. 5-2 (Standard Life Table and Details), the evidence No. 6-1, 2 (standard mark and content of government wage unit), and the whole purport of the pleading

(2) mountain.

(A) Between seasons

From December 1, 1993 to the end of 59 years of age, the maximum working age: 40 years (480 months).

(b) mountain.

Monthly income: 482,50 won x 2/3 =321,66 won (if the amount is less than the original, the burner; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Total revenue: 321,66 won x 240 (applicable only to 270.2290-21.074 =249.2216 or 240) x 77,19,840 won

(b) Funeral expenses.

The disbursement officer: Plaintiff 1

Amount: 1,200,000 won

(C) there is no dispute;

C. Limitation on liability

(1) Liability ratio: 90% (see the above 1-B).

(2) mountain.

The deceased: 7,199,840 won in lost earnings x 90/100 =69,479,856 won in lost earnings.

Plaintiff 1: Funeral expenses KRW 1,200,000 x 90/100 =1,080,000

(d) Condolence money;

(1) Reasons for taking into account: Age, family relationship, circumstances surrounding accidents, results of accidents, degree of negligence of both parties, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments;

(2) The amount determined;

The Deceased: 7,000,000 won

Plaintiff 1 and 2: each of the 3,000,000 won

Plaintiff 3, 4: each gold 1,000,000

(f) Inheritance relationship;

(1) The deceased’s property heir: the plaintiff 1 and 2 (referring to the above 1-A(2))

(2) Inheritance amount;

Plaintiff 1 and 2: (The deceased’s property damage + KRW 69,479,856 + 7,00,000 + 1/2 = 38,239,928 respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant 42,319,928 won for plaintiff 1 (i.e., funeral expenses 1,080,000 + 38,239,928 won for inheritance + 38,239,928 won for inheritance) and 41,239,928 won for plaintiff 2 (i.e., 3,000,000 won for inheritance + 38,239,928 won for inheritance + 38,239,928 won for inheritance), and 1,00,000 won for consolation money for each of them from February 2, 1992, which is the date of the above accident, to August 13, 1992, which is the date of the decision of the court below, the plaintiff 3 and 4, respectively, are dismissed, and there is no reason to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims for delay compensation within the scope of each of the above grounds for appeal.

Judges Lee Lee-young (Presiding Judge)