209 Gohap96255 Damages (i.e., one)

1. Hexa○ (O -O);

Republic of Korea, North Korea, Japan

2. HanO (O -O);

Jeonbukan District ○○ ○

3. OO (O -O);

Gwangju North-gu 00

4. OO (O -O);

Jeonbukan District ○○ ○

Attorney Kang Jong-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant

1. ○○ Stock Company;

Seoul Central District ○ ○

Representative Director ○○

Attorney Park Tae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. ○○ (O -O)

Goyang-si, Solsan-gu 0

3. Kim○○ (00 - 00)

When permanent residence 00

May 19, 2010

June 18, 2010

1. Defendant Lee ○○ and Han ○○ shall pay each of the plaintiffs 189, 891, 680 won, plaintiffs Do○○ and Do○○○, respectively, 3,000 won, and 5% per annum from June 30, 2009 to June 18, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant Lee ○○ and Kim ○○, and their respective claims against the defendant ○○ corporation are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant ○○ Co., Ltd. is borne by the plaintiff, and one-fifth of the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant ○○, and Kim○○ is borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the defendant ○○, and Kim○.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendants jointly and severally against Plaintiff Hu○○○, KRW 234, 505, 809, and KRW 226, 837, 89, respectively;

Plaintiff 5,00,000, and each of the said money to Plaintiff Do○○ and Do○○○, respectively, as from June 30, 2009.

The calculation of 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

Korea shall pay the same amount of money.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1-1-3 and evidence 13-1-1-15.

A. On June 30, 200: Defendant 08: around 20: Around 00, 074, the two-lane of the deceased's blood alcohol content was 0.074%, and the two-lanes of the two-lanes in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, coming into one-lane, the center line of the yellow real vehicle, which was driven by the front side of the No. 3-lane of the No. 3-lane in the front side of the No. 3-lane, and the two-lanes of the No. 3-lane in the front side of the No. 3-lane in the front side of the No. 3-lane in the front side of the No. 9, the two-lane in the front side of the No. 3-lane in the front side of the No. 3-lane in the front side of the No. 3-lane in the front side of the No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "No. 1 accident"). The two-lane in the front side of the No. 1 disaster.

B. The body of the deceased, the body of the deceased, the body of ○○, the body of the deceased, the body of the deceased, the Plaintiff Hu○○○, the body of the deceased, the body of the deceased, the Plaintiff Hu○○○, the body of the deceased, the punishment of the deceased, and the Defendant ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff, the owner of the foregoing car operated by ○○○○.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the occurrence of liability for damages (1) Defendant Lee ○, and Kim ○○, Defendant Lee ○○ was at the time of the instant secondary accident, and Defendant Lee ○○ was at the time of the instant secondary accident, and on the road at the location of the accident, a yellow solid line is installed. In such a case, the driver of a motor vehicle was negligent in driving the motor vehicle without the center line and neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident, and caused the instant secondary accident due to the negligent negligence, while under the influence of alcohol, while driving the motor vehicle without the center line, and neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident. Accordingly, Defendant Lee ○-○ and his owner, the driver of the said Puskn motor vehicle, and Defendant Kim ○○, the owner, are liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their families. (2) The Defendant company is liable for damages against the Defendant company.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant company, as the insurer of the motor vehicle, is liable for damages suffered by the deceased and his family members due to the third accident of this case, because the driver of this case had occupational duty to maintain the safety distance with the vehicle in front at the time of the third accident of this case and to prevent the chain collision due to the first accident of this case by properly operating the brake system. Thus, the defendant company, as the insurer of the motor vehicle of this case, is liable for the death of the deceased, because it neglected to maintain the safety distance with the vehicle in front of this case, although there was a duty of care to prevent the chain collision due to the first accident of this case by maintaining the safety distance with the vehicle in front of this case.

살피건대, 위에서 든 증거 등에 의하면, 이 사건과 유사한 도로 조건에서 시속 60 ~ 63㎞로 진행하다가 위험을 인지하고 급제동하는 경우 통상의 정지거리는 약 31. 8 ~ 36. 8m ( 공주거리 11. 6m ~ 16. 6m + 제동거리 20. 2m ) 로 산출되고, 이○○은 이 사건 1차 사고를 인지하고 2차로로 피양하면서 제동하였으나 망인을 충격 · 역과하면서 약 9. 3m 끌고 간 뒤에야 정차하여, 그 제동거리가 약 29m 이상으로 통상의 경우보다 길게 나타났으며, 이○○은 2010. 1. 22. 이 사건 3차 사고로 인하여 서울북부지방법원 ( 2009 고단2206호 ) 에서 벌금 200만 원의 형을 선고받았고, 그 판결은 그 무렵 확정된 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 한편, 이○○은 망인 운전의 원동기장치자전거와 통상의 정지거리인 약 31. 8m ~ 36. 8m에 가까운 약 31. 4m의 거리를 두고 진행하고 있었으며, 이 사건 1차 사고를 목격하고 바로 핸들을 오른쪽으로 틀면서 제동조치를 취하여 1차로에서 2차로로 이동하였으나, 망인이 이 사건 2차 사고로 위 투스카니 승용차의 전면 유리창에 부딪힌 후 튕겨 나와 2차로에 전도된 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이○○이 이 사건 1차 사고로 인하여 자기 진행차선 전방에서 발생하는 돌발적인 위험으로 인해 앞차와의 충돌을 피하기 위하여 제동조치를 취하면서 2차로로 차선변경을 한 점, 망인은 피고 이○○이 일으킨 이 사건 2차 사고로 인해 1차로에서 튕겨져 나와 2차로에 추락하게 된 점, 위와 같이 급박한 상황에 있던 이○○으로서는 망인의 추락지점 등을 예견하기가 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, 도로교통법 제19조 제1항이 규정하는 안전거리확보의무는 앞차와의 관계에 대한 것으로 2차로상에 추락한 망인과의 관계에서는 안전거리가 확보되지 아니한 것으로 단정하기 어려운 점, 가사 망인 운전의 원동기장치자전거와 다소의 안전거리가 확보되지 아니하였다 하더라도, 앞차가 급정지하는 경우에는 제동거리 등이 필요하므로, 이 사건에서와 같이 운행차량 전방으로 사람이 추락하는 경우 통상의 안전거리를 기준으로 평가하기 어려운 점 등 이 사건에 나타난 제반사정에 비추어 보면 이○○이 앞차와 충분한 안전거리를 확보하지 않은 채 진행한 것으로 볼 여지가 있다 하더라도, 이와 이 사건 3차 사고 발생 사이에는 상당인과관계가 있는 것으로 보기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 이를 전제로 한 원고들의 위 주장은 더 나아가 살필 필요 없이 이유 없다 .

(b) The range of damages (1) the daily income;

The lost income loss suffered by the deceased due to the above accident is KRW 30,953,817, based on the facts of recognition and evaluation as follows, based on the calculation of the present price at the time of the above accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act.

(A) Facts of recognition and evaluation 1) Gender and date of birth: Gender and birth on October 1900 (the male shall be 31 years old and 11 years old at the time of the accident).

2) Job and income: The deceased’s salary is KRW 2,250,00 per month as an employee of ○○○ (hereinafter “non-party company”) at the time of the above accident: The maximum working age of the non-party company shall be the last day of the month in which the worker reaches the age of 55, barring any special circumstances, and the deceased shall retire from the non-party company on June 30, 203, which is the last day of the month when he reaches the age of 55, unless he reaches the age of 55. Thus, the deceased may obtain income as an employee of the non-party company until he reaches the age of 60. After his retirement, it is reasonable to view that the non-party company was to work as an employee of the non-party company and to have earned income of KRW 66,622 per day until he reaches the age of 60 in accordance with the empirical rule.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the deceased may operate beyond 60 years of age. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(4) Cost of living: (i) the fact that there is no dispute over income (based on recognition); (ii) the empirical rule; (iii) the fact that there is a remarkable statement in this court; and (b) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (iii) the retirement allowance from June 30, 209 to June 30, 203, the age limit of retirement x 250, 000 x 3 x 9573 (288 months) x 283, 188, 435, 950 won (the number of days from the date of the above 283,000 won) = (the number of days from the date of retirement x 37,200 won which the plaintiff would not have sustained from the date of the above 203,435,950 won (the same shall apply hereinafter) x 26,2038,600 won which were less than the age limit of retirement x 37,2845.26

(2) Average wages of 25 years and respectively: (30, 25, 300 x 30 x 30) of the forecast retirement allowance (2,250): 2, 30) x 274 x 30) x (25, 274 x 12) x (30) x (125, 00 x 125 x 64 x 7) x (12, 274 x 0) x (15 x 05 x 24) x 37 : 25, 37) 】 (30) : 10, 600 won per annum (30, 000 x 05 x 24) : 25, 708, 657 x 274) - 37

Therefore, as the plaintiffs seek from June 30, 2009, which is the date of the above accident, with respect to the money of KRW 3,00,00,00 and each of the above money to Do○○○○ and Do○○○○○, respectively, 189, 891, 680 won, Plaintiff Do○○, and Do○○○○, respectively, the defendant Lee Dong-○ and Kim○, are obligated to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act until June 18, 2010, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant company of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is reasonable to accept the claim of this case against the defendant Lee ○, Kim ○, and Kim ○, within the scope of each recognition above. Since each claim is without merit, it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Seo-won of the presiding judge

Judges Park Jong-hwan

Judges Shin Jae-young