Duties of Care of Appointeds for Military Motor Vehicles

A selected passenger of a military vehicle has a duty of care to always supervise whether the driver's disease complies with all rules and safely drives the vehicle age and prevent the occurrence of the accident.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Effica et al. and five others

National Cargo Transport Corporation

Government Branch of Seoul District Court (77Gahap210) in the first instance court

1. The part against the above plaintiffs in the original judgment in relation to the plaintiff Lee Fe-deok, Dong-Jak, Dong-Jak, Dong-Jak, Dong-Jak, Dong-Jak, Dong-Jak, Dong-Jak, and Dong-Jak, which is

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Jong-soo the amount of 777,778 won, 2,33,34 won, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g.,

3. The appeal by the plaintiff Jeong Jong-sung, the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs, the appeal by the defendants against the plaintiffs, and the extension claim by the plaintiffs in the trial of the parties respectively are dismissed.

4. The expenses incurred by the appeal by the plaintiff's failure are borne by the Dong plaintiff, the expenses incurred by the appeal by the defendant against the plaintiffs shall be borne by the defendant, and all the expenses incurred by the remaining plaintiffs except for the plaintiff's failure, shall be borne by the plaintiff's failure in the first and second instances, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, respectively.

5. All parts, the execution of which has not been declared by the original judgment in accordance with the original judgment in paragraph (2) above and paragraph (1) above, may be provisionally executed.

(F) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Maddong the amount of 9,024,48 won, 500,000 won to the plaintiff Maddong, 20,073,463 won to the Dong Doncheon, gold 13,548,976 won to the Dong Doncheon, gold 7,024,48 won to the Dong Donyeong-do, gold 13,548,976 won to the Dong Donyeong-do and the amount of 5 percent per annum from April 30, 197 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

(Plaintiffs): The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Egym-hym-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-hum-h

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials, and a declaration of provisional execution.

(Defendant) : Revocation of the part against the defendant in the original judgment and dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim corresponding thereto.

The judgment of both the first and second courts that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The non-party 5 evidence Nos. 6 (Report on Investigation of the Deceased) and Nos. 8 (Report on Destruction), 11 (Report on Damage), 12 (Report on Damage), 14 (Report on Damage), 16 (Medical Examination), 23 (Written Evidence Nos. 19 (Written Evidence), 27 (Written Evidence No. 3), 26, 27 (Written Evidence No. 47) of the judgment of the court below that the non-party 1 was not liable for damages to the non-party 3's non-party 5's testimony on the ground of the non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's testimony and testimony No. 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's testimony and testimony No.7.

The defendant's attorney argues that the accident was caused exclusively by negligence of the above gadic heat (excluding the above trusted part) and the testimony in the gadic order of the witness of the court below, because the non-party 1, who was the victim, was able to see the above gadic of drinking, and caused a truck of the defendant company under normal operation by overfuncing the heavy gadic line by overfuncing it. The above assertion is just because there is no evidence to prove that the testimony in the above gadic order of the witness of the court below is different without belief.

다음 피고소송대리인은, 이건 사고발생에 있어서 소외 망 강종열의 과실이 경합되어 있으므로 피고회사의 손해배상책임은 면제되거나 그렇지 않다 하더라도 그 손해액을 정함에 있어서 소외 망인의 과실이 참작되어야 한다는 취지의 항변을 함으로 살피건대, 앞에서 인용한 각 증거에 의하면, 소외 망 강종열은 이건 사고당시 육군 제3933부대 작전과장으로 재직하면서 그 업무를 수행하기 위하여 운전병인 소외 강신원으로 하여금 위 설시 찝차를 운전케하고 공무를 마치고 귀대하던 중이었던 바 이러한 경우 군용차량의 선임 탑승자인 동인으로서는 운전병이 제반수칙을 준수하고 안전하게 차량을 운행하는가 여부를 항시 감독하여 사고발생을 미연에 방지하게 하여야 할 주의의무가 있다고 할 것인데 이러한 주의의무를 태만히 하여 위 강신원으로 하여금 도로 폭이 좁고 차량이 교행하기 어려운 좁은 교량이 전방에 위치한 위험한 이건 사고지점에서 도로 중앙선을 침범한 채 운행하도록 방치한 잘못으로 이건 사고가 야기된 사실을 인정할 수 있으니 이건 사고발생에 있어서는 소외 망 강종열의 위와 같은 과실도 경합하여 있다고 할 것인 바, 그 과실은 피고회사의 배상책임을 면재할 정도에는 이르지 않는 바이고 다만 배상할 손해액을 정함에 있어서 참작할 사유는 된다고 하겠다.

2. Calculation of damages;

(1) Property damage

The above Gap's salary class 1, 2, 3, 100 won and 40 won and 100 won and 20 won and 80 won and 40 won and 70 won and 10 won and 40 won and 80 won and 10 won and 40 won and 60 won and 10 won and 10 won and 50 won and 10 won and 40 won and 50 won and 10 won and 8,00 won and 10 won and 50 won and 50 won and 50 won and 10 won and 50 won and 50 won and 1,00 won and 50 won and 1,00 won and 1,000 won and 1,00 won and 1,00 won and 2,00 won and 1,00 won and 1,00 won and 1,7,00 won and 1,00 won and 1,00 won and 3, respectively.

(A) Loss equivalent to wages and wages for daily work in the city;

위 인정사실에 의하면 망인이 만일 이건 사고로 인하여 사망하지 아니하였더라면 1977.4.1.부터 1977.8.31.까지 5개월간은 육군 소령으로 근무하면서 8호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 167,280원(실수령 봉급 155,280원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩의, 1977.9.1.부터 군인사법에 의하여 육군 중령의 계급정년인 8년이 경과되는 때임이 명백한 1985.8.31.까지 96개월간은 육군 중령으로 근무하면서 1977.9.1.부터 1978.8.31.까지는 중령 5호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 182,800원(실수령 봉급 170,800원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩, 1978.9.1.부터 1979.8.31.까지는 중령 6호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 188,942원(실수령 봉급 176,942원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩, 1979.9.1.부터 1980.8.31.까지는 중령 7호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 195,018원(실수령 봉급 183,018원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩, 1980.9.1.부터 1981.8.31.까지는 중령 8호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 201,014원(실수령 봉급 189,014원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩, 1981.9.1.부터 1982.8.31.까지는 중령 9호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 207,170원(실수령 봉급 195,170원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩, 1982.9.1.부터 1983.8.31.까지는 중령 10호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 213,246원(실수령 봉급 201,246원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩, 1983.9.1.부터 1984.8.31.까지는 중령 11호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 219,190원(실수령 봉급 207,190원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩, 1984.9.1.부터 1985.8.31.까지는 중령 12호봉을 지급받아 매달 금 225,035원(실수령 봉급 213,035원+부식비, 가족수당 32,000원-생계비 20,000원)씩의, 그리고 군에서 퇴역하는 1985.9.1.부터 만55세가 끝나는 때인 1996.2.5.까지 125개월간은 도시 일용노동에 종사하여 매달 금 27,500언{(1,900원×25일)-생계비 20,000원}씩의 순수입을 순차로 얻었을 것인데 본건 사고로 인하여 동액 상당의 손해를 입었다고 볼 것인 바, 원고들은 이를 이건 사고 당시의 기준으로 하여 일시에 청구하므로 월 5/12푼의 율에 의한 중간이자를 공제하는 호프만식 계산법에 따라 이건 사고 당시의 현가액을 환산하면 아래와 같이 합계 금 18,944,535원(원미만 버림, 이하 같다)이 됨은 계산상 명백하다.

(1) The amount of loss of import as the Order of the Army;

167,280 won ¡¿ 4.9384 =826,095 won

(ii) the amount of loss of import as the Army Lieutenant;

(i)Age 5:

182,800 won 】 (16.3918-4.9384) =2,093,681 won

(b)second class 6 of Lieutenant 6;

188,942 won 】 (27.325-16.3981) =2,065,457 won

(c)Jey 7 salary class (7);

195,018 won 】 (37.7789-27.3235) =2,038,991 won

(d) Lieutenant 8:

201,014 won 】 (47.797-37789) =2,013,919 won

(v) Lieutenant 9 et al.

207,170 won 】 (57.4150-477) =1,92,416 won

(f) Lieutenant 10 class 10;

213,246 won 】 (66.617-5150) =1,971,821 won

(vii) Lieutenant 11;

219,190 won 】 (75.564-617) =1,951,602 won

(8)Age 12:

225,035 won 】 (84.1505-7564) =1,931,947 won

Total amount of 16,885,929

3) The amount of loss of income equivalent to the daily wages of urban workers.

27,500 won 】 (159.089-84.1505) =2,058,606 won

Total Amount of 18,944,535 won

(B) Loss equivalent to bonuses;

According to the above evidence, non-party 1 was 10 percent of the deceased's salary at the end of 1,00 (40 percent per annum) and 2. The amount of salary class 8 of the deceased's salary class shall be 151,010 (as the plaintiff requests, this amount shall be calculated 159,90-10) every 3 months, 15-1, 46-1, 7-1, 9-1, 9-1, 7-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 9-1, 4, 16-1, 7, 9-1, 6-1, 7, 9-1, 6-1, 4, 7, 7, 107, 1, 107, 9-1, 1, 107, 1, 47, 1, 107, 1, 46-1, 1, 36-1, 4, 7.

(i) bonus at the time of the Army Order;

(1) From April 1, 197 to June 30, 1977

151,010 】 [1/1 + (3/12) x 0.05] = 149,137 won

(1) It shall be calculated only to four units below the decimal point in calculating the value, and less than won in calculating the amount, hereinafter the same shall apply).

(2) From July 1, 1977 to September 30, 1977)

151,010 】 [1/1 + (6/12) x 0.05] = 147,325 won

(ii) bonuses to be received in the promotion of the Army First Lieutenant;

(1) From October 1, 197 to December 31, 1977 (No. 5)

165,220 won 】 [1/1 + (9/12) x 0.05} = 159,239 won

(2) From January 1, 1978 to March 31, 1978 (No. 5)

165,220 won 】 [1/1 + (12/12) x 0.05} = 157,339 won

(c) From April 1, 1978 to June 30, 1978 (e.g. 5)

165,220 won x [1/1 + (15/12) x 0.05] x 155,488 won

(iv) From July 1, 1978 to September 30, 1978 (No. 5)

165,220 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (18/12) ¡¿ 0.05] = 153,687 won.

(v) From October 1, 1978, until December 31, 1978 (attached 6).

170,372 won 】 [1/1 + (21/12) x 0.05} = 156,657 won

(6) From January 1, 1979 to March 31, 1979 (No. 6)

170,372 won 】 [1/1 + (24/12) x 0.05} = 154,885 won

(vii) From April 1, 1979 to June 30, 1979 (No. 6)

170,372 won 】 [1/1 + (27/12) x 0.05} = 153,147 won

(8) From July 1, 1979 to September 30, 1979 (in accordance with the Plaintiffs’ request)

170,372 won 】 [1/1 + (30/12) x 0.05} = 151,443 won

(2) As of October 1, 1979, from October 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979 (No. 7)

175,521 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (33/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 154,300 won

(C) From January 1, 1980 to March 31, 1980 (No. 7)

175,521 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (36/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 152,615 won

(ㅋ) 1980.4.1.부터 1980.6.30.까지(7호봉)

175,521 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (39/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 150,983 won

(C) From July 1, 1980 to September 30, 1980 (Chump 7 and the plaintiffs' claims)

175,521 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (42/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 149,368 won

(ㅍ) 1980.10.1.부터 1980.12.31.까지(8호봉)

180,676 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (45/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 152,147 won

(ㅎ) 1981.1.1.부터 1981.3.31.까지(8호봉)

180,676 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (48/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 150,557 won

(1) From April 1, 1981 to June 30, 1981 (No. 8)

180,676 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (51/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 149,003 won

(2) From July 1, 1981 to September 30, 1981 (as referred to in salary grade 8 and the plaintiffs' claims)

180,676 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (54/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 147,485 won

(c) From October 1, 1981 to December 31, 1981 (patal 9)

185,485 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (57/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 149,890 won

(d) From January 1, 1982 to March 31, 1982 (No. 9)

185,485 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (60/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 148,388 won

(v) From April 1, 1982 to June 30, 1982 (No. 9)

185,485 】 [1/1 + (63/12) x 0.05] = 146,922 won

(6) From July 1, 1982 to September 30, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 's June')

185,485 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (66/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 145,475 won

(vii) From October 1, 1982 to December 31, 1982 (No. 10)

190,403 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (69/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 147,886 won

(8) From January 1, 1983 to March 31, 1983 (No. 10)

190,403 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (72/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 146,457 won

(2) From April 1, 1983 to June 30, 1983 (No. 10)

190,403 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (75/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 145,068 won

(No. 10) From July 1, 1983 to September 30, 1983 (No. 10)

190,403 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (78/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 143,697 won

(ㅋ') 1983.10.1.부터 1983.12.31.까지(11호봉)

195,397 won x [1/1 + (81/12) x 0.05] x 146,078 won

(C) From January 1, 1984 to March 31, 1984 (No. 11)

195,397 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (84/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 144,730 won

(ㅍ') 1984.4.1.부터 1984.6.30.까지(11호봉)

195,397 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (87/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 143,401 won

(ㅎ') 1984.7.1.부터 1984.9.30.까지(11호봉, 원고들 청구에 따름)

195,397 won ¡¿ [1/1 + (90/12) ¡¿ 0.05} = 142,112 won

(1) From October 1, 1984 to December 31, 1984 (No. 12)

200,492 won 】 [1/1 + (93/12) x 0.05] = 144,494 won

(2) From January 1, 1985 to March 31, 1985 (No. 12)

200,492 won 】 [1/1 + (96/12) x 0.05} = 143,211 won

(3) From April 1, 1985 to June 30, 1985 (12)

200,492 won 】 [1/1 + (9/12) x 0.05} = 141,928 won

(d) From July 1, 1985 to August 31, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "divement")

200,492 won 】 (2/3) 】 [1/1 + (101/12) x 0.05] =94,070 won

Total amount of 6,018,612

(C) Under the premise that Non-party 1 was promoted to the Army Order as a matter of course on September 1, 1981 to the Army Order, and that the amount of damages equivalent to the bonus amounting to 400 percent per annum during the above period should be paid as well as the amount of damages equivalent to the bonus amounting to 100 percent per annum under the premise that the non-party 1 was promoted to the Army Order as a matter of course on August 31, 1991, and that the amount of the above non-party’s retirement pension should be paid as pension until October 1, 1991 (this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s 20 years of military service) and the amount of the above non-party 1’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s retirement pension cannot be acknowledged as being based on the premise that the above non-party 1’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case.

(d)To offset the fault of the deceased and the share of the deceased's contribution;

Ultimately, the total amount of the deceased’s property loss due to the accident in this case shall be KRW 24,963,147 in total ($18,94,535 in total as losses equivalent to the daily wage in salary and city, + KRW 6,018,612 in total as losses equivalent to bonuses). However, in consideration of the deceased’s negligence as seen earlier, the amount of property loss shall be KRW 18,00,000 in property damages. If it is divided according to the plaintiffs’ respective shares of inheritance (excluding the plaintiff’s Methicality), the amount of damages in the plaintiff’s strong Sea shall be KRW 6,00,000 in total, KRW 2,000,000 in total, and KRW 5,00 in total, and KRW 4,00 in total, and KRW 4,00 in total in total, and the amount of damages in the same Methical mouth.

(2) Consolation money

Since the non-party 1 died due to the accident of this case, it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiffs who were the wife, were suffering from severe mental pain. Thus, the defendant is obligated to use this in money. Thus, considering the following circumstances: the plaintiffs' age and status status status status as the plaintiffs, the social status of the non-party 1, and the degree of negligence, the non-party 1, the consolation money for the non-party 1, and the remaining plaintiffs' consolation money for the non-party 1,00 won should be 50,000 won, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's order to 2,50,00 won (2,00,000 won + 500,000 won for damages on property + 100,000 won for 50 won for 10,000 won for 50,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,00 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 2,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 9,000 won for 2,000 won for 9,000 won for 3,000 won for 7,000.

Judges Lee Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)