Cases where the reduction rate of the amount of damages due to a traffic accident differs for each owner of the damaged automobile;

If the accident driver caused the collision, and the accident with the cargo vehicle owned by the victim Eul while the wife was taking aboard in order to bring the victims from the vehicle Gap to the life balance of the patient who borrowed the vehicle from the vehicle Gap, it is very unreasonable to impose the same responsibility as that of the ordinary traffic accident in light of the personal relation between the accident driver and the victims in light of the status relationship between the accident driver and the victims, the operation circumstances of the above vehicle, the purpose of operation, etc., and thus, it is very unreasonable in light of the good faith and the principle of equity to determine the amount of damages to be compensated by the above Gap shall be reduced in

Articles 2 and 763 of the Civil Act, Article 4 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 818, Dec. 22, 1987)

Plaintiff 1 and 11 others

Limited Liability Company, Cargo Transport Company and one other

Suwon District Court of the first instance (87Gahap190 delivered on July 1, 200)

1. Of the original judgment, the Defendants’ claim of KRW 1,00, KRW 80,00 to Plaintiff 1, 20, KRW 80,00, KRW 300 to Plaintiff 3, and KRW 6,752, KRW 425, KRW 4272, KRW 285 to Plaintiff 5, and KRW 4,272, KRW 406, KRW 504, KRW 393,394 to Plaintiff 7, KRW 2,53, KRW 94, and KRW 2,57, KRW 97, KRW 2,57, KRW 48, KRW 10 to Plaintiff 3, KRW 2,57, KRW 10 to Plaintiff 4, KRW 2,57, KRW 97, KRW 97, KRW 457, KRW 97, KRW 10 to Plaintiff 11,562, KRW 105, KRW 175, KRW 175, KRW 275, KRW 975, KRW 175.

2. All remaining appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them is the plaintiffs, and the remainder is the defendants' each.

4. The part on which the original judgment has not been pronounced in the original judgment in accordance with the above paragraph (1) above, may be provisionally executed;

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay 2,00,000 won to Plaintiffs 1 and 2, 13,864,715 won to Plaintiffs 5, 8,380 won to Plaintiffs 5, 10,127,820 won to Plaintiff 6, 8,619,860 won to Plaintiff 7, 8,840 won to Plaintiff 8,196,840 won to Plaintiff 9, 6,83,490 won to Plaintiff 3, 2,000 won to Plaintiff 10, 6,45,170 won to Plaintiff 6,08,720 won to Plaintiff 12, 6,369, and 8,860 won to Plaintiff 7, 840 won to Plaintiff 8, and the annual interest rate from the day following the 15th day to the 15th day to the 15th day of the rendering of each annual interest rate to Plaintiff 10 to the 10th day.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and provisional execution declaration

The part of the original judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto shall be dismissed.

Litigation Costs are assessed against the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

Plaintiff 1 and 2 are the parents of Plaintiff 4, 10, 6, and deceased non-party 1, and Plaintiff 5 is the children of Plaintiff 4, Plaintiff 7, 8, and 9. Plaintiff 3 is the husband of Plaintiff 10, Plaintiff 11, and 12, and Non-party 2 is the husband of the deceased non-party 1, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the deceased non-party 1 was the husband of the deceased non-party 3, and Non-party 4, evidence No. 8-4, 5, 6 (Reports of Traffic Accidents), 15 (Statement of Statement), and 20, and 9-4, 6, 8 (Dismissal of Indictment), 8, 8 (Dismissal of Prosecution), and 10-1, 36, 17, 17, 37, 17, 2, 2, 3, 3, and 5-1, which were operated by the plaintiffs' office.

이에 대하여, 피고 2는 소외 2가 위 봉고차의 운행에 관하여 주의를 게을리하지 아니하였으며 이 사건 사고는 직진하던 차량인 위 봉고차에게 통행의 우선권이 있음에도 불구하고 직진하는 차량이 있는지의 여부를 잘 살피지 아니한 채 갑자기 죄회전한 소외 3의 과실로 말미암아 발생한 것이므로 위 피고에게는 아무런 책임이 없다고 주장하고, 피고회사는 소외 3이 위 화물트럭의 운행에 관하여 주의를 게을리하지 아니하였으며 이 사건 사고는 위 화물트럭이 삼거리교차로에 진입하여 거의 좌회전을 끝내려 하고 있었음에도 이를 무시한 채 과속으로 그대로 직진한 소외 2의 과실로 말미암아 발생한 것이므로 피고회사에게는 아무런 책임이 없다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 소외 2나 소외 3이 그들이 운전하던 자동차의 운행에 관하여 주의를 다하였다고 볼 만한 아무런 증거가 없고, 오히려 위에 나온 각 증거에 의하면, 위 사고 장소는 신호등이 없고 교통정리가 행하여지지 않는 삼거리교차로로서 폭 7.5미터의 편도 1차선 국도인데, ① 소외 3은 직진차량에게 통행의 우선권이 있고 위 국도로 좌회전하여 나오려고 할 때 위 봉고차가 좌측에서 빠른 속도로 진행하여 오는 것을 보았음에도 충돌없이 좌회전할 수 있으리라 믿고 위 봉고차에게 진로를 양보하지 아니한 채 시속 약 15킬로미터의 속도로 그대로 좌회전하려 한 과실로 말미암아 위 사고를 일으켰고, ② 소외 2는 위 화물트럭이 전방 우측에서 이미 삼거리에 진입하여 죄회전하려고 멈칫거리는 것을 보았으므로 위 화물트럭에게 좌회전하도록 진로를 양보하든가 또는 사고장소는 빙판이 져 있었으므로 속도를 줄이고 위 화물트럭의 움직임을 잘 살피면서 안전하게 진행하여야 함에도 위 화물트럭이 좌회전하지 않으리라 믿고 시속 약 60킬로미터의 같은 속도로 그대로 직진한 과실로 말미암아 위 사고를 일으킨 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없으므로, 위 사고는 소외 3과 소외 2의 과실이 경합되어 발생한 것이라고 할 것이어서 피고들의 면책주장은 모두 그 이유없다.

However, as seen above, Nonparty 2 borrowed the above vehicle from Defendant 2 in order to go to the life balance of the deceased, and caused the above accident to go to the wife, and therefore, in determining the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendants in light of the personal relationship between Nonparty 2 and the plaintiffs, the negligence of Nonparty 2 prior to the determination of the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendants should be reduced by taking into account the negligence of the so-called victim. In addition, in relation to the above Plaintiffs and Defendant 2, it is very unreasonable to impose the above Defendant the same responsibility as the ordinary traffic accident in light of the principle of good faith or equity, and thus, in determining the amount of damages to be paid by the above Defendant, it shall be reduced again in consideration of the above circumstances. The reduction rate should be 30/100 of the total amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant Company and 50/100 of the total amount of damages to be paid by Defendant 2, taking into account all the circumstances as seen above.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

(1) Plaintiff 4’s lost income

According to Gap evidence 1-1 (No. 1-2), Gap evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 5-2 (the mark and content of Korean personal life list), Eul evidence 10-10-2 (the mark and content of the employment status survey report by occupation, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 1-3) and the purport of the oral argument as a result of the testimony of Kim Tae-nam's testimony during the original judgment and the physical examination of the head of Hanyang University's affiliated hospital, the court below's whole purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff 4 was a male who was 39 years old and healthy, and its average remaining life was 29.02 years old at the time of the above accident, and since 1965, the above plaintiff was operated with the right-hand industry from 1972 to 1972, and since 1972, the plaintiff was still suffering from the accident of this case due to the accident of this case such as violation of the rule of evidence No. 1-1, 1987.

According to the above facts, if the above accident had not occurred, the above plaintiff would have been engaged in a chemical operator until the age of 55 expires, and at least 10 years would have been able to obtain income. The above accident occurred: ① For two months from the date of the accident to March 28, 1987 when hospital treatment was completed; ② for 369,293 won per month for 190 months from the date of the accident; ② for 190 months from the completion of the age of 55 until the date of the accident; ② for 36,929 won for 36,929 won (369,293,10/100) for 36,929 won for the above income 】 (for 369,293,000 won and 10/100 of the above income) 】 The above loss was calculated based on the full amount of the loss x 196% for 29,000 won per month and 196.36.4% of the above average amount per 96.96% per month.3.4%.

The above plaintiff asserted that the above plaintiff had net income of about 500,000 won per month after deducting all the expenses of the plaintiff's business operation and earned net income of about 500,000 won per month, but the above plaintiff's testimony of the court below is insufficient to deem that the above plaintiff had earned net income of about 500,000 won at the time of the above accident. Since there is no other evidence to support this, the above plaintiff's assertion is groundless.

(2) In full view of the reasoning of the judgment below's physical appraisal as follows: Plaintiff 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 1-2, and Gap evidence 6-1, 2 (Korean citizen's life tag and content) from the above accident, the above plaintiffs are all residents in an urban area, and their dates of birth, age at the time of the accident, gender, and average life expectancy at the time of the accident, are stated in the annexed Table 2 (a), (b), and (c). Although the above accident had fixed symptoms such as receiving hospitalized treatment at the hospital, etc., due to the above accident, the above plaintiffs have no dispute over Gap evidence 1-1, 5-2, and Gap evidence 1-2, and Gap evidence 6-1, 6-2, and all purport of the oral argument of the court below's physical appraisal result, the above plaintiffs cannot be acknowledged as being equal to the average labor rate of 5 days in the case 10-day.

According to the above facts, the above plaintiffs had no accident above 3.2. 2. 2. 1. 5 】 (3. 2. 2. 3. 1. 5 】 the amount of their wages could have been earned at least from their ordinary urban labor at their residential places during the operation period stated in the attached Table 2. 3. 4. 2. 4. 2. 5 】 The above plaintiffs' damages could have been suffered from their losses which could not be obtained monthlyly due to the above accidents - 2. 3. 9 . 89 . 29 . 4, 987, 751 (12,750 x 15.90 x 15. 21) . 29 . 29, 308 . 298 . 97. 985 . 97. 985 . 7. 985 . 2985 .

(b) Expenses for future treatment;

According to the result of physical appraisal and the whole purport of oral argument of the court below from the above accident, ① the plaintiff 4 shall undergo a gymmetric surgery to remove the reflects of face, which requires gold 928,000 won at that expense. ② The plaintiff 5 shall undergo a gymical beauty surgery on the gymical reflects of the front ma, and the cost requires gold 1,240,000 won at that expense. ③ The plaintiff 6 shall use the gymical frymals for 60 days from July 30, 1987, which is 00,000 won, every 6th day from the date of the written request for physical appraisal of the court below. The plaintiffs 6th day from July 30, 1987, which is 00 won to 60,000 won per day, each of the above 60,833 (2,000 won x 3601/12,00).

According to the facts found above, ① Plaintiffs 4 and 5 must pay the sex surgery expenses in the future. ② Plaintiff 6 shall pay 60,833 won per month during the period from February 12, 198 to July 30, 198, which is the day following the date of the closure of the argument in this case. ③ Plaintiff 8 shall be deemed to have suffered losses that should be paid 69,166 won per month during the period from July 30, 1990 to July 30, 1990. Thus, Plaintiff 6, 8 shall seek the full payment of the damages as at the time of the above accident, so it is evident that Plaintiff 6's future medical treatment expenses are 285,16 [60,83 won 】63 won 】 29,173-294636.64]. It is clear that Plaintiff 6's losses will be calculated as at the time of the above accident 】 (36,1964-164.64]

In addition, the plaintiff 7 argues that the above accident requires two copies of drugs to be used every six months in the future, and that it is required to pay 1,000 won per day. Thus, according to the results of physical appraisal and the purport of oral argument from the above, the period during which the above plaintiff's use of two copies of drugs is required can be recognized as being for six months from July 30, 1987, which is the date of the written request for physical appraisal, and therefore, it is apparent that the period for which two copies of drugs are to be used has already passed since the above period for which two copies of drugs are to be used for six months from July 30, 1987. Therefore, the above plaintiff's claim for medical expenses in the future is groundless.

(c) Reduction of damages;

Therefore, the plaintiffs 4, 78, 140, 275, 278, 279, 279, 279, 279, 174, 270, 279, 279, 279, 278, 174, 279, 279, 279, 279, 279, 279, 279, 279, 279, 374, 279, 279, 279, 476, 279, 279, 279, 279, 379, 279, 279, 379, 7639, 76363, 804, 297, 97, 278, 198, 294) of the plaintiff's damages.

(d) Condolence money;

In light of the empirical rule that the above plaintiffs who were on board the above high-class vehicle sustained an injury and that the above plaintiffs as well as the above plaintiffs in their family relations received considerable mental suffering, the defendants are obligated to do so in money. Thus, considering various circumstances such as the plaintiffs' age, family relation, property and education degree, accident circumstance and result, etc. as shown in the argument of this case, the defendants should pay 1,000 won to the plaintiffs 4 and 5 respectively to the plaintiffs 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 100 won, respectively, and 80,000 won to the others.

3. Conclusion

Then, the Defendants’ respective claims were accepted as KRW 1,00,000, KRW 300, KRW 100, KRW 200, KRW 3010, KRW 400, KRW 200, KRW 400, KRW 1075, KRW 400, KRW 200, KRW 400, KRW 250, KRW 250, KRW 407, KRW 106, KRW 205, KRW 406, KRW 205, KRW 70, KRW 406, KRW 205, KRW 70, KRW 106, KRW 205, KRW 40, KRW 106, KRW 205, KRW 106, KRW 305, KRW 406, KRW 705, KRW 205, KRW 305, KRW 705, KRW 305, KRW 205, KRW 305,00).

Judges Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Judge) Transfer Kim Young-hun