(1) If the number of truck drivers belonging to the Army is 10 tons of a truck engine connected to the train, a duty of care to display a technical park on the train connected to the train.

(2) The negligence of the technical park in the above Lera.

(1) When the 10 tons truck driver's number of truckers belonging to the Army Renovation Facility is carried and operated with 250 scrappeds connected to the truckter, a person shall not be loaded in a dangerous place, and if it was difficult to get the staff to work in the workplace due to unavoidable circumstances, it shall be ensured to attach a safe place, as well as to confirm safety. However, in the part connected between the truckter and the boat, the technical park for work should be loaded at a speed of 15 knife at a distance of 15 km from the vehicle's core operation, a person who was absent, was negligent in failing to exercise his/her duty of care in performing official duties.

(2) The deceased non-party 2 committed a part of the cause of this accident by negligence, which caused the fixed string of the safe body or fixed objects without holding a safe body or fixed object in a dangerous place.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (68Ga3254) in the first instance trial

(1) The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be modified as follows.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 216,66 won, 363,32 won to the plaintiff 2, 30,000 won, and 30,000 won per annum to the plaintiff 3,00 won per annum from November 1, 1967 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

(4) The costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts through the first and second trials, and one of them is the defendant, and the other is the defendant, respectively.

(5) The main text (2) of this judgment may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 529,372, KRW 878,744, KRW 70,00 for each of the plaintiffs 3, and KRW 70,00 for each of them, and an amount of KRW 5% per annum from November 1, 1967 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant litigation performer shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

(1) Occurrence of damages liability

In light of the reasoning of the record verification by the court below, Non-party 1, who is a captain of the Army Renovation 10 tons of the defendant Tex, was working for the Army Renovation 10 tons under his command. On November 1, 1967, Non-party 2 and Non-party 3, a technology park belonging to the above Tex, were loaded 250 articles and operated together with the returned unit gun hold as work workers at the time of loading and returning unit. In this case, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 did not have any other duty of care to check whether the vehicle was in operation at a dangerous place due to one inevitable reason, and did not have any other duty of care to check whether the vehicle was in operation at a safe place in order to ensure safety and safety, and to prevent the accident that may occur at the time of operation of the bed, and the non-party 1 had any other duty of care to check whether the vehicle was in operation at the time of the above Mex 1's own end without any other duty of care to check whether the vehicle was in operation.

Therefore, the accident of this case shall be deemed to have occurred due to the negligence that was caused by the non-party 1, a state public official, in performing his duty of care. Thus, the defendant shall be held liable for all damages suffered by the deceased non-party 2 and the plaintiffs, who were the deceased non-party 1, and the defendant shall be held liable for all damages incurred by the deceased non-party 1, the son and the parents.

However, according to the result of the examination by the court below, the deceased non-party 2, as well as the deceased non-party 2, at such dangerous places as seen above, and even if they were on such places due to unavoidable circumstances, even if they were on board due to unavoidable circumstances, it is difficult to say that the deceased non-party 2 should have fulfilled his/her duty of care to prevent the non-accident of the accident, such as taking a completely fixed object, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the deceased non-party 1's negligence as seen above caused the accident of this case together with the negligence as seen above, and thus, the above negligence of the deceased non-party 2 should be considered in determining the amount of damages that the defendant would compensate for.

(2) Scope of damages

(A) Property damage

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 5), 5 (Simplified Life Table), and 6-1, 2 (O.S. Survey Sheet and its contents) of the same No. 6-1, and all the purport of the testimony and pleadings of non-party 4, the deceased non-party 2 was 30 years old at the time of the accident, since his average life life life life life life of 31 years old and 40 years old, and if he did not occur, the deceased non-party 1 was 40 days old each year for 25 years from the time of the accident, and 10 days old since 30 days old since the date of the accident, 30 days old since 10 days old since the date of the accident, 30 days old since 10 days old since the date of the accident, 30 days old since 10 days old since the date of the accident (the same shall apply to the above part of the non-party 4 of this case) can be found as 38 days old since the date of the accident.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for compensating for the loss of expected income suffered by the deceased non-party 2 as the loss of expected income. If considering the negligence of the deceased non-party as seen earlier, the amount of the loss of expected income that the defendant is liable for as above should be determined as KRW 500,000.

However, since the above money is deemed to have been jointly inherited by Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2, both of whom are the wife of the deceased non-party and the deceased non-party, and if it is divided according to their statutory shares of inheritance, it is obvious that Plaintiff 1 would be a gold of 166,666 won (a fine of less than won), and Plaintiff 2 would be a gold of 33,332 won (a fine of less than won).

(B) Consolation money

In light of our rule of experience that the plaintiffs suffered severe mental pain due to the accident of this case as the wife and parent of the deceased non-party 2, the defendant is obligated to avoid the above mental pain of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, it is reasonable to pay 50,000 won to the plaintiff 1 as consolation money, and 30,000 won to the plaintiff 2, 30,000 won respectively in consideration of the circumstances of this case, the degree of negligence of the victims, and other various circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 with 166,66 and 50,00 won a sum of 216,666 won, 33,32 won a sum of 30,000 won a property damage and 363,32 won a sum of 30,000 won ac 363,32 won, 300 won ac 30,000 won a sum of 30,000 won ac 30,000 won ac 30,000 won ac 30,000 won a year from November 1, 1967, which is the date of the occurrence of the accident, to the full payment system. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the extent of the above recognition, and the remainder is reasonable, and the judgment below which partially concluded is improper within the extent of the defendant's appeal is modified as stated in Article 93 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 93 (1) of the Civil Execution Act.

Judges Jeong-won (Presiding Judge)