Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 3 (Attorney Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 18, 2009

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 101,858,152 won, 5 million won to each of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, 3 million won, 5% per annum from April 27, 2004 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 16:30 on April 27, 2004, Defendant 1 driven a bus (vehicle number 1 omitted) belonging to Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant one vehicle”) and parked at the front bus stoping in the mountain apartment leading park leading to the mountain apartment that is located in the said bus stop for passengers getting off, Defendant 2 driven by Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. (vehicle number 2 omitted) who was driven by Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant two vehicles”).

B. Plaintiff 1 was on board the instant 2 vehicle. After the accident, he was diagnosed from the Seoul Emposium located in the 1st degree of the said accident, he was hospitalized as a scarcity, but was discharged from the next day, and was hospitalized in the Seoul Emposium at the Seoul Emposium located in the 2nd degree of the same day, he was diagnosed as requiring 3 weeks of medical treatment from the next day.

C. After that, on June 2, 2004, Plaintiff 1 was discharged from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on the same day and was hospitalized in the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on a further diagnosis by the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, and then hospitalized in the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on July 6, 2004 that it is possible to provide medical treatment. On August 24, 2004, Plaintiff 1 was discharged from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on the same day, and was hospitalized in the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea in the East National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on the same day, and was discharged from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on November 17, 2004, and was hospitalized in the Gangseo-dong National Medical Hospital of the Republic of Korea on the same day, and was discharged from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on February 16, 2004, and was discharged from the National Medical Hospital of the Republic of Korea on the same day, and was hospitalized symptoms and ur surgery.

D. The Korean Federation of Bus Transport Business Associations, which concluded a mutual aid agreement with Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. on the instant 1 and 2 vehicles (hereinafter “CFF”), filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff 1 to confirm the existence of an obligation against the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul High Court 2005Na62787, Supreme Court 2006Da50239, Supreme Court 2006Da50239).

E. The Seoul Southern District Court sentenced that the debt of the bus mutual aid association against Plaintiff 1 due to the instant accident does not exist in excess of KRW 1,510,920, the bus mutual aid association itself is a person, and the appeal of Plaintiff 1 was dismissed on November 10, 2006, and the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive.

F. The National Health Insurance Corporation filed a claim for reimbursement against the bus mutual aid association and the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. (Seoul Eastern District Court 2006Na1052, Seoul Eastern District Court 2007Na1052, Supreme Court 2007Da68930, Supreme Court 2007Da68930, supra).

G. In the first instance trial, the judgment dismissing the claim of the National Health Insurance Corporation was rendered, and Plaintiff 1 appealed from the National Health Insurance Corporation to the National Health Insurance Corporation and appealed, but on December 28, 2007, the Supreme Court dismissed Plaintiff 1’s appeal and the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive.

H. With respect to the case of Seoul Southern District Court 2004Gahap18539, the bus mutual aid association filed an application with the Plaintiff 1 for the confirmation of litigation cost amounting to 2006Ka26 (Seoul High Court 2007Ra919) in the same court (Seoul High Court 2007Ra919) and was decided on April 16, 2007 to confirm that Plaintiff 1 is KRW 3,277,850. Although Plaintiff 1 filed an appeal against the above decision, the appellate court dismissed the above appeal and became final and conclusive on July 12, 2007.

I. The plaintiff 2 and 3 are the parents of the plaintiff 1, and the plaintiff 4 is the former.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 2 evidence, each entry of Eul 1 to 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Plaintiff 1 caused the instant accident to interfere with urology, such as urology and urology, and thereby, labor disability loss rate is about 15%. The Defendants are obliged to compensate for lost interests arising therefrom and active and passive damages equivalent to medical expenses in the future.

B. The defendants' assertion

The instant accident was a minor accident. The Defendants’ liability against Plaintiff 1 is limited to KRW 1,510,920, which is recognized in the lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of a debt filed by the bus mutual aid association, which is a mutual aid business entity for Plaintiff 1 and 2 vehicles of this case against Plaintiff 1. However, the bus mutual aid association has a claim for reimbursement of the lawsuit cost amounting to KRW 4 million, including the claim of KRW 3,277,850 regarding the lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of a debt against Plaintiff 1. Therefore, if it is offset against the amount equal to that of Plaintiff 1’s damage liability, the Defendants are not liable to compensate the Plaintiffs

3. Determination

A. Determination on Plaintiff 1’s claim

(1) According to a mutual aid agreement with Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 4 Co., Ltd., the bus mutual aid association merely assumes the same obligation as the Defendant’s obligation owed to Plaintiff 1 due to the operation of the instant 1 and 2 vehicles. The lawsuit brought by the bus mutual aid association against Plaintiff 1 is the substance of the lawsuit brought against the Plaintiff 1 on behalf of all the Defendants. However, as seen earlier, the lawsuit brought against Plaintiff 1 and the bus mutual aid association was brought to confirm the existence of the obligation arising from the instant accident, and the lawsuit was actively brought between both parties and the judgment and the final judgment became final and conclusive. Although the parties to the lawsuit in this case are formally different or in substance, it shall be deemed that the parties to the lawsuit in this case are identical, and Plaintiff 1 cannot assert otherwise from the outcome of the previous lawsuit.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff 1 for the damages amounting to KRW 1,510,920, which is recognized as the bus mutual aid association.

D. Meanwhile, the Defendants’ respective and the Plaintiff 1’s obligations are joint and several obligations, and when the persons having the claims to offset are not set-off among joint and several obligors, other joint and several liability can be set-off only against the obligor’s obligations. In addition, in relation between the Defendants and the bus mutual aid association, the bus mutual aid association is the final liable obligor. As such, in relation to the bus mutual aid association, the bus mutual aid association is the final liable obligor. Accordingly, at the time of delivery of a preparatory document dated June 5, 2009, stating the Defendants’ declaration of intent to offset the claims with the lawsuit costs of the bus mutual aid association, both claims were extinguished retroactively to the time when both claims were set-off against the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants’ defense is with merit

B. Determination on the claims by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4

If Plaintiff 1 suffered disability as claimed by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that Plaintiff 1’s parents and nuitant students suffered mental suffering.

However, according to the records of Gap evidence 10, on December 16, 2005, when one year and eight months after the accident in this case occurred, the plaintiff 1 received medical treatment from the urology department of the Seoul National University Hospital, and on September 2004, the transferred physician was also subject to the urology examination by the Seoul National University Hospital, but the doctor was not able to find the ground for the urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine, and on December 16, 2005, there were no urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine urine. However, in light of the above facts, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff 1's urine urine urine urine was different from the opinion of the urine urine urology examination.

Therefore, it cannot be said that Plaintiff 1 suffered from disability as alleged in the instant accident, and in light of the process of litigation with Plaintiff 1 and the bus mutual aid association, the size of damages incurred by the instant accident, the degree of injury inflicted upon Plaintiff 1, and the fact that the said Plaintiffs may actually be equal to Plaintiff 1, the mere fact that the instant accident occurred is insufficient to recognize that the parent or sibling, other than Plaintiff 1, suffered from loss to the extent that consolation money is recognized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the above Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed for all reasons.

Judges Lee Jin-hee