A case in which it is deemed that there is negligence on the victim who was involved in the accident with a crosswalk without signal lights at night;

At night 22:00, when a crosswalk where a traffic signal, etc. is not installed, a report on the fact that a vehicle involved in an accident is proceeding at a rapid speed of the vehicle is also about to go beyond the central line without examining the movement of the above vehicle closely, if the victim was involved in an accident while trying to go beyond the central line without examining the movement of the vehicle closely, it shall be deemed that there was a secondary caution that the vehicle was immediately cut off without neglecting the safety of the side of the vehicle when crossing the crosswalk. Therefore, the above negligence on the part of the victim shall be considered in determining the amount of damages.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Kim Tae-soo

Attorney Lee Dong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 85Na1289 delivered on February 18, 1986

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on its macroficial evidence, found that Non-party 1, who is a taxi driver in Daegu 4m2507, which is owned by the defendant company, drives the above taxi around 20:0 on June 4, 1983. The non-party 1, who is a taxi driver in Taegu 2507, was driving the above taxi at a speed of about 40 km in Daegu Gyeong-gu, Seo-gu and about 1108, at a speed of about 5 dong 1108, Seo-gu, Daegu Gyeong-gu, which was driving at a speed of about 40 km in Daegu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and had been driving the above taxi at a speed of about 40 km. Since there is a place where a pedestrian crossing is installed, the person engaged in driving the vehicle, who was in the vehicle driving duty, again stopped before the crosswalk, was negligent in his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, and rejected the plaintiff's defense, other than the above evidence.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the point of accident in this case was the crosswalk but there was no traffic signal, etc., and the accident occurred at night 22:00 (round 20:00, the court below's reasoning of the judgment below) and there was an obstacle to the view. Meanwhile, even if the plaintiff reported that the accident occurred at the rapid speed of the vehicle in Daegu, Seo-gu, and Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and Seo-gu, about the accident along with Non-party Huban, the plaintiff attempted to go beyond the central line without thoroughly examining the movement of the above taxi, and it can be seen that the above accident was caused by the above accident. If the facts are the same, it seems that there was a negligence that caused the vehicle to be immediately cut off without neglecting the safety on the side of the accident in this case, and since the plaintiff's negligence cannot be said to have caused the above accident, the court below's decision that did not consider the plaintiff's fault's damages amount to be paid in accordance with the plaintiff's negligence.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff, based on the evidences of the city, was using approximately twenty years of experience as a technician in the direct water factory (work that sets up a watchhouse or an excessive baby), and obtained an average of KRW 350,000 per month, respectively. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misconception of facts due to incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law in the misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence.

3. On the third ground for appeal

Based on the facts established by the court below, the court below held that it was difficult for the plaintiff to engage in a high level of island work due to severe aftermatha from the accident in this case and that it was no longer possible for the plaintiff to engage in a general urban-day work, and on this premise, calculated the plaintiff's lost income. Such decision of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of lost income.

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed for the reasons stated in the judgment on the first ground for appeal, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)