Passage to the right of the road without distinction between India and roadway, and negligence of the victim

On a road without distinction between India and vehicular road, the passage to the right is due to negligence.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act, Article 8 of the Road Traffic Act

67Da696 delivered on March 26, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 1195 delivered on March 26, 196, Supreme Court Decision 16Nu172 delivered on June 16, 196, Supreme Court Decision 763(104)584 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Countries

Seoul Central District Court (65 Ghana8763) of the first instance court

(1) The original judgment is modified as follows.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 40,000 won and 20,000 won respectively for each of the above amounts and 5% per annum for each of the above amounts from September 9, 1962 to the completion of repayment.

(3) The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs and the Defendant’s equal share in the aggregate of the costs of the first and second instances.

(5) Of the money under paragraph (2), the part exceeding the amount sentenced to the provisional execution in the original judgment may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 an amount of KRW 92,00 and KRW 46,050, respectively, and to the plaintiff 6 and 7 an amount of KRW 46,050 per annum from September 9, 1962 to the completion of repayment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs should be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The defendant shall revoke the part of the original judgment against the defendant.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The court of first and second instances decided that all the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence No. 2 (Judgment), Eul evidence No. 1 (S.), evidence No. 3 (statement No. 3), and evidence No. 3 (Evidence No. 3) presumed to have been established, the non-party No. 1 of the Army bottled No. 82, and the non-party No. 2 of the Army were the persons belonging to the Army No. 26 and the non-party No. 2 of the Army had no duty of care to take necessary measures so that the non-party No. 3 could have the above non-party No. 2 move the above vehicle to the right-hand side of the vehicle and the non-party No. 2 of the non-party No. 3 of the non-party No. 2, the non-party No. 3 could have the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 3 were the non-party No. 8's driver's license of the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 8's driver's license of the non-party No. 2.

The following facts are revealed: (a) Non-party 3, who died, was ordinarily healthy female under 53 years of age at the time of death on August 16, 1909; and (b) such life is 16.82 years of age pursuant to the evidence No. 5 (Simplified Life Table) without dispute over the establishment. According to the testimony of Non-party 4 and Non-party 5 of the court below and the purport of the parties' arguments, Non-party 3, who died, was 7,000 won per month for clothes at the time of death, and his personal living expenses were 2,00 won per month (the testimony portion of Non-party 4 of the above witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's reliance on this point is not believed), and the above conduct is a woman under 53 years of age and health under the rule of experience 】 within the scope of 59 years of age and 300 years of age, which is obviously 300 won of the above 600-year amount of damages.

However, according to the above evidence No. 1, the above claim for damages was jointly acquired by the plaintiffs (the plaintiff 1's husband, the plaintiff 2, 3, 4, and 5 children, the plaintiff 6, and the plaintiff 7) and the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 among the above claims for damages due to the death of the non-party 3. Thus, according to the shares of inheritance under the Civil Act, the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 among the above claims for 40,00 won, 20,000 won, and 10,000 won, respectively, for the non-party 6, and 7 after the non-party 1's death.

If so, the defendant is liable to pay the above-mentioned amounts and damages for delay in civil law with 5% per annum from September 9, 1962, on which the above illegal act was committed, to the completion of repayment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are just within the above-mentioned scope and the remainder is unfair. Since the original judgment differs from some conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89, Article 92, Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the alteration of the above-mentioned amounts, and Article 199 of the provisional execution as to the pronouncement of provisional execution.

Judges Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Kim Young-young Park