(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.7.23.선고 2013나8335 판결

1. The part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the money ordered under the following among the part against the plaintiff A in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the claim against the plaintiff A corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 26, 362, 940 won with 5% interest per annum from December 1, 2012 to July 23, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal against the plaintiff A are all dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation cost incurred between the plaintiff A and the defendant, 3/5 shall be borne by the plaintiff A, the remainder by the defendant, and the appeal cost incurred between the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff A and the defendant shall be borne by the same plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

Defendant 61, 745, 865 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively to Plaintiff A 500,000 won, Plaintiff D, E, and F

Each class of money of KRW 200,000 and each class of money shall be annual from December 1, 2012 until the date the first instance judgment is rendered.

5%, 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs who are ordered to pay the following additional amounts:

Each revocation. The defendant shall revoke to the plaintiff A KRW 200,00,000 for each of the plaintiff A, KRW 8,206, KRW 610, and KRW 200 for each of the plaintiff B, and KRW 3

JJD, E, and F, each of 50,00 won and each of them, the first instance judgment from December 1, 2012

Until such date, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Korea shall pay the same amount of money.

(b) Defendant;

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff A shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

The plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 2012: around 10, 10, I opened a ○○-owned vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “seaing vehicle”) and opened a road located in both north-west-west-west-west-west-west-west in the direction of the road from the two North-west-west-west-west-side, and caused A, who was on the back of the sea-going vehicle, by shocking the utility to the front part of the vehicle and was on the front part of the vehicle and was on the back of the sea-going vehicle, to suffer from the injury of the brupt-on (6) without a flood control by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).

B. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with I for sea-going vehicles, and the Plaintiff B and C are the parents of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff D, E, and F are the children of the Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence A1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability for damages

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as an insurer with respect to a household vehicle.

B. Limitation on liability for damages

However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1 of the evidence and evidence Nos. 7-1, 1 were considered as a whole and the purport of the argument as follows. In other words, Plaintiff A and I were aware of neighboring residents, and Plaintiff I, Plaintiff A, and J appear to have moved to a damaged vehicle for the purpose of drinking at the point of view. Plaintiff A did not fasten the safety level at the time of the instant accident. The instant accident was an accident with the front part of the tidal vehicle. The Defendant did not have any liability for damages to Plaintiff A, in light of the fact-finding relation between Plaintiff A and I, the purpose and circumstances of operation of the vehicle, and the degree of safe operation of the vehicle, Plaintiff A and the result of the instant accident, etc., the Defendant’s assertion that there was no liability for damages to the Defendant, such as Plaintiff A’s failure to take account of the following facts and the principle of equity.

3. Scope of damages.

In principle, the period of the calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and not more than KRW 10,00 shall be discarded. The current price calculation at the time of the accident of the amount of damages shall be based on the discount method that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. And it shall be rejected that the parties' arguments do not separately state.

A. The plaintiff A's actual income

1) Facts of recognition and details of evaluation

(A) the basic facts

(1) Date of birth: January 2, 1979

(2) The age at the time of the accident: 33 years of age and 10 months;

(3) Gender: Women

(4) Name of lease: 52. 18 years

B) Financial assessment of maximum working age and maximum working age

From December 1, 2012, the date of the instant accident, December 1, 2012, the maximum working age of which is 60 years, the maximum working age, January 1, 2039, which is 60 years of age, money that can be obtained by engaging in daily work on the 22th day of each month.

(1) KRW 80,732 from December 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012

(2) 81, 443 won from January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2013

(3) 83,975 won from September 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013

(4) 84, 166 won from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2039

(c)the ratio of residual disability and labor capacity loss;

(i)Hal disability;

Sponsive disabilities that cannot be improved, such as loss of infants, writing function, and heart reduction;

(2) Ratio of the loss of labour capacity

1. 14% of the above aftermath disability assessment table and luberg weather disability loss rate of 1.14% of the above aftermath disability (the plaintiffs claim that 5% of the labor disability loss rate should be recognized under subparagraph 3 of Item 2 attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act, but the method of calculating the labor disability loss rate under the Enforcement Decree of the State Compensation Act provides that the grades should be limited to specific areas, such as the State Compensation Act, for the limited type of compensation, and it is not clear that the degree of disability is not entirely affected by the occupational contents of the occupation, and it is too abstract and too high that the degree of disability is too high. Accordingly, the labor disability loss rate of the plaintiffs A cannot be immediately acknowledged on the ground thereof. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' assertion that the labor disability loss rate of the new method based on the degree of loss of low ability should be applied in consideration of the job, age, health condition at the time of the accident, the state of loss of infants, the degree of current treatment, and the degree of recovery ability.

2) Calculation

(unit: source)

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Unstrifed Facts, entry of Gap 4-1, 2, and Gap 6-6's evidence, and an order of the court of first instance

The president of the division (as of May 23, 2013), the president of the division (as of May 23, 2013), the president of the university hospital (as of May 31, 2013), and university enlisted men;

Each fact relevance to the president (as of July 2, 2013) and the president of a university (as of September 16, 2013) and the president of a university hospital (as of September 16, 2013)

As a result of the first instance court’s commission of physical examination to the Head of University Hospital, the empirical rule;

Clear facts, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Positive damage of Plaintiff A

1) The king medical expenses: 6,670,00 won

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 5 evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2) Future medical expenses: 22, 930, 820 won

In full view of the results of the physical examination entrusted to the head of the university hospital of the first instance, and the fact-finding division, the plaintiff A needs to provide the whole 4 parts of the previous ambrogate in the future, and 2.2 million won (-50,000 won - 550,000 won x 4) at the expense of the plaintiff, which requires the treatment of the ambrogate of the previous ambrogate, and 2.2 million won ( = 1.1 million won x 2) at the expense of the medical treatment of the ambrogate of the previous ambrogate, and 5,00 won (1.1 million won X5) at the expense of the first instance court, and the average number of the above 1.5 years to 7.5 years ambroster equipment of the previous ambroster and the upper ambroster equipment of the previous ambroster is the average number of 1.5 years to 7.5 years ambrote.7 years.

However, in full view of the evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 5-3 and 4 as a whole, Plaintiff A may recognize the fact that he received each of the crypology of the above cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp cryp from March 2013.

In the light of this, it shall be 22, 930, 820 won as stated in the following calculation table:

A person shall be appointed.

The current number of months of the necessary number of months and the number of months of the current number of months necessary for the order of the current number of months;

11 2021 - 9 - 105 105 - 12028 - 9 - 1894 - 2022 - 1110 110 - 6857

2 2030 - 31 32070 - 5369 22043 - 910 22030 - 2030 - 8 - 120 530 - 5309

3 2038 - 09 - 1 309 - 4371 32058 - 9 - 1 549 - 3039 - 2039 - 2032 October 210

4 2047 - 310 April 3686 2047 - 810 October 3658

5 205 - 910 3187 5 2056 - 210 3166

6 2064 - 31 615 0. 2807 6 2064 - 81 620 0 2790

3) Total amount: 29, 600, 820 won ( = 6,670,00 won for the previous medical expenses + future medical expenses of KRW 22,930, 820)

C. Limitation on liability for the Plaintiff’s property damage

25, 362, 940 won [ = (or actual income 4, 216, 434 won + positive damage 29, 600, 820 won) x 75%];

D. The plaintiffs' consolation money

1) Reasons for consideration: All the circumstances revealed in the changes of this case, including the plaintiffs' age and occupation, the background and result of the accident of this case, the degree of negligence of the plaintiff A, the injury suffered by the plaintiff and the degree and degree of injury suffered by the plaintiff A, and the treatment process.

2) The amount recognized by each plaintiff

A) Plaintiff A: 1 million won

B) Plaintiff B, C: each of 200,000 won

C) Plaintiffs D, E, and F: each of the KRW 50,000 won

E. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of set-off

The defendant paid KRW 684,820 to the plaintiff A for the payment of KRW 684,820 to the plaintiff. Since the defendant asserted that the part corresponding to the ratio of negligence of the plaintiff A among the above money should be offset in calculating the amount of damages of the plaintiff A, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant paid KRW 684,820 to the plaintiffs for the payment of KRW 684,820 to the plaintiff, and even if the defendant paid the plaintiff A for the payment of the above money to the plaintiff, the defendant's liability for the defendant was already limited to 75% as seen above, as seen in the above 3. b. 1). Thus, unless there is no evidence to support that the defendant's payment of the plaintiff's payment to the plaintiff was a separate medical expense from the king of the above 3. b. 1). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the part of the plaintiff's payment to the plaintiff was equivalent to the ratio of negligence of the plaintiff.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A 26, 362, 940 won ( = property damage 25, 362, 940 won + consolation money of one million won), the plaintiff B, and C as consolation money, each of which is KRW 200,000 won and KRW 50,000 per annum to the plaintiff D, E, E, and F as consolation money, from December 1, 2012, the date of the accident of this case, to the plaintiff who is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's duty to perform, until July 23, 2014, the date of the judgment of the court of the trial, and to pay the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff A 2,00 won per annum to November 22, 2013, each of which is 5% per annum from the day following each judgment of the court of first instance, and 20% per annum of each lawsuit prescribed by the Civil Act concerning the promotion of each lawsuit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed, without merit. Since the part against the defendant against the plaintiff, which exceeds the above amount of money in the judgment of the court of first instance, is unfair in conclusion, it is so revoked, and the plaintiff A's claims corresponding to the revoked part are dismissed, and the plaintiffs' appeals and the defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiff A are dismissed, as they are without merit.

Judges

Doing of the presiding judge

Judges Park Jin-jin

Judges and higher-ranking

심급 사건

-울산지방법원 2013.11.22.선고 2013가단9962

울산지방법원 2014.7.23.선고 2013나8335

참조조문

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.03.24 2013가단83080

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.3.17.선고 2014가단5022980 판결

-부산지방법원 2010.10.20.선고 2009가합8447 판결

-광주지방법원 2015.01.13 2013가단47045

-서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나5680