(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.1.31. 선고 2017가단5135375 판결

1. The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 152,184,11 won, and 5% interest per annum from May 30, 2015 to January 31, 2019, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 25% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 200,313,975 won with 5% interest per annum from May 30, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

1) Around 03:09 on May 29, 2015, D driven an E D D D D D D dump truck (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”) and dumped the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) with the front part of F (F (125Coba) driving, driving the said intersection on the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the right side of the road while entering the dump road of the dump road located in the Orpo-Eup-Eup-Myeon in Gwangju Metropolitan City from the left side of the road to the port side of the road (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The instant accident caused the death of Plaintiff Otoba, who was on the back left of the back of the instant case, caused the death of Plaintiff Otoba due to brain livers, etc. while receiving treatment by suffering from injury, such as climatic bladrosis, etc. (hereinafter “H”).

3) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 1 (including each number), the whole purport of pleading

B. Recognition of liability

According to the above facts, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident.

C. Limitation on liability

However, according to each of the above evidence, it is recognized that the deceased without a driver's license, without permission, left the plaintiff A's Obane without his father, without permission, was operated by the pro-friendly F without a driver's license, and the deceased did not wear a safety mother. Therefore, the defendant's liability is limited to 55% in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant is liable for such mistake.

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages shall be the same as the corresponding item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages, and the period for calculating the amount for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but less than the last month and less than the amount shall be discarded. The current value calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the principle of simple interest deduction at the rate of 5/12 per month from the intermediate interest rate. Moreover,

(a) The deceased’s lost income;

1) Personal information: as stated in the separate sheet of calculation of damages in attached Form.

2) Standard income and maximum working age: The daily wage of an ordinary worker in an urban area (the 22th day of each month) and the deceased’s 19-year-old male at the time of the accident. As such, the deceased’s 19-year-old male at the time of the accident, recognizing the period from the 20-year-old to the 24-year-old military service period to the 60-year-old August 14, 205 for which the Plaintiffs seek from August 15, 2017,

4) Determination and calculation: The detailed calculation details are as shown in the column of "actual income in the annexed sheet of calculation of damages."

(b) Expenses for medical treatment: 1,668,700 won (Evidence A6);

D. Limitation of Liability: 55% of the defendant's liability ratio (see the above 1.C.)

(e) Mutual aid;

As the Defendant seeks, KRW 252,220, equivalent to 45% of the deceased’s share of national health insurance charges of KRW 560,490, which is the percentage of the deceased’s fault, shall be deducted from the amount of damage of the deceased (where a victim who received insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act claims damages against a third party, if the victim’s negligence is concurrent in the occurrence of such damage, the amount of damages calculated first shall be offset from the amount of damage calculated, and the amount of insurance benefits shall be deducted from the amount of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da44563, Sept. 10, 209; 2010Da13732, Jul. 8, 2010). In this case, after calculating the amount of damages calculated by deducting the amount of public fences charges from the amount of offsetting negligence and the amount of damages calculated by deducting the percentage of negligence among the Corporation’s share of damages, it shall be calculated as the Defendant’s claim).

F. Consolation Money

1) Reasons for taking into account: Circumstances revealed in the arguments in the instant case, such as the background of the instant accident, the deceased’s age, degree of negligence, and the personal relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs

(ii) the amount recognized;

1. Deceased: 40,000,000 won

② Each of the Plaintiffs: 10,000,000 won

(g) Inheritance relations,

1. Amount subject to inheritance: 281,618,222 won (=property damage 241,618,222 + ex officio data;

40,000,000 won

2) Inheritance shares: Each of the plaintiffs 1/2

3) Inheritance Amount: 140,809,111 won each of the plaintiffs (=281,618,222 won x 1/2)

4) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of confusion

The defendant asserts that, in the case of the plaintiff A, the plaintiff A is in a position to compensate for the damage of the deceased as the actual holder of the plaintiff Oralb, and that the amount inherited by the plaintiff A from the deceased and the amount of damages that the plaintiff A shall compensate for to the deceased are extinguished by confusion

Article 507 of the Civil Act recognizes the grounds for extinguishment of a claim as the grounds for extinguishment of a claim is not an active reason not to recognize the existence of a claim and an obligation when it reverts to the same person, but in such a case there is no particular meaning to recognize the existence of a claim and an obligation. Therefore, even if a claim and an obligation belong to the same person, it is deemed that the purpose is to simplify the relationship of rights and obligations thereafter by recognizing the extinguishment of a claim and an obligation. Therefore, even if a claim and an obligation belong to the same person, if there are special reasons for recognizing the existence of the claim and the obligation, they shall continue to exist without extinguishment due to confusion. In light of the above, even if they belong to the same person, if there is a legitimate interest to recognize the existence of the claim as the premise for the exercise of a right by a third person by the creditor and the obligation, it is reasonable to

In a case where an operator of an automobile which caused a traffic accident while driving an automobile or his/her relatives died and thus the damage liability and liability under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act accrue to the same person by inheritance, if the operator of the automobile who caused the traffic accident subscribed to the automobile accident liability insurance, the fact that the perpetrator grants benefits under the liability insurance to the victim of the traffic accident or his/her heir except in special cases such as becoming the heir of the victim does not differ from other traffic accidents. On the other hand, the insurer of the liability insurance for automobile accident, on the other hand, is not only a third party irrelevant to inheritance, but also a third party irrelevant to inheritance, and there is no reasonable reason to be exempted from his/her liability for compensation due to inheritance between the perpetrator of the traffic accident and the victim. Therefore, in a case where the so-called direct claim by which the victim may directly claim the insurance company under the terms and conditions of the liability insurance for automobile accident pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act is accompanied, it shall not be deemed that the victim's damage claim is extinguished by inheritance 35.

In light of the above legal principles, as long as the damage claim inherited by the Plaintiff A becomes the premise of the direct claim against the Defendant, it shall not be extinguished by confusion. The Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of whole pleading

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages each amount of KRW 152,184,11 (=Succession amount)

140,809,111 won + Funeral expenses of KRW 1,375,00 + 10,000 + consolation money of KRW 10,00) and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from May 30, 2015 to January 31, 2019, the date of the instant judgment, which is the date of the instant judgment, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.