Whether the claim for consolation money is accepted by the president of the relevant high-income bracket in cases where the child was injured by another person's illegal act.

The fact that the plaintiff was designated as a guardian in the event that the child sustained an injury by another person's illegal act cannot be said to have a claim for consolation money due to the above illegal act.

Articles 751 and 752 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (69A1841) in the first instance trial (Supreme Court Decision 69Da1841)

(1) Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff 1 among the original judgment is revoked, and the plaintiff 1's claim against the revocation portion is dismissed.

(2) The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 2's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

(3) All the costs of appeal brought between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant are assessed against the plaintiff 1, while the costs of appeal brought against the plaintiff 2 are assessed against the defendant, the costs of incidental appeal brought against the plaintiff 2 are assessed against the defendant, the plaintiff 2.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 50,000 won, 2,150,831 won, and the annual interest rate of 5% from September 24, 1968 to the day of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

The part against the plaintiffs in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 50,000 won, 2,150,831 won, and the annual interest rate of 5% from September 24, 1968 to the day of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

(1) The establishment of liability for damages and the fault of the victim

On September 23, 1968, at around 12:00, the driver non-party 1, who was sent to the Army Headquarters, sustained injury, such as damage to the right side and the interests of the two spons (or interests) by the plaintiff 2, while the driver non-party 1, who was employed by the plaintiff 2, suffered injury on the part of the plaintiff 1/4 tons and the main part of the plaintiff 2, in the latter part of the body of the vehicle of the defendant 134, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. The reason for determining the party member's negligence by the plaintiff 2, the victim, is the same as that of the original judgment. Thus, the reason for determining the party

(ii)the amount of damage;

(A) Revenue loss amount

In full view of the testimony of the court below and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 2's appraisal result of the non-party 2, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments in Gap evidence 3 (Simplified Life Table), evidence Nos. 13-2, and evidence Nos. 13 of the same Act (LA), and evidence Nos. 13-2 (LA), which are not disputed in the formation of the above accident, the plaintiff 2 is a man of July 23, 1959 who is the non-party 3, the non-party 2's testimony, the non-party 3, and the non-party 2's appraisal result, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments. The average male's average male's urban wage of the same age is about 54 years of age and approximately 540 days of age, which is close to the time of the closing of argument, and the above plaintiff cannot be admitted to have lost 60% of the ability to work due to the above accident.

Therefore, Plaintiff 2 was unable to obtain net profits for at least 8,100 won [((540 won x 25) x 60/100)] from among the incomes that may be earned by engaging in urban labor for at least 35 years within the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim against the maximum working age of up to 55 years, which is the average remaining life of Plaintiff 2 and below 10 years from the date of the above accident (which is a congenital deaf and is exempted from military service as a congenital deaf and is exempt from military service) due to the above accident. Accordingly, Plaintiff 2 filed a claim for damages equivalent to that amount on the basis of 1 month based on the time of the accident. Accordingly, it is clear that Plaintiff 2’s claim for damages in the above future on the basis of 5/12% of the total amount is gold 1,465,976 won x 8,100 won x 67-10319, 284).

(b) Treatment costs;

In light of the evidence No. 5 (Receipt) presumed to have been established by the Defendant, Plaintiff 2 spent KRW 105,670 as medical expenses for the treatment of the above injury on July 11, 1970, and 365,000 for the Plaintiff’s profit correction and sex punishment (one-day medical expenses are required and one-year medical treatment period is required), and there is no other evidence to decide on the above recognition.

(C) Negligence offsetting

Therefore, the plaintiff 2 suffered losses in the amount of KRW 1,936,646 for the loss of profits and medical expenses, and in consideration of the degree of negligence on the part of the plaintiff in the competition before the occurrence of the above accident, the amount of damages that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2 shall be determined as KRW 1,300,000.

(D) Consolation money

In light of all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the age, occupation, degree of injury suffered by the plaintiff 2, the perpetrator's negligence and the degree of negligence of the plaintiff 2, which coincide with the above accident, it is reasonable to determine the amount of KRW 100,000 to the plaintiff 2.

(3) Judgment on the plaintiff 1's claim

Plaintiff 1 claimed consolation money of KRW 100,00,00 on the ground that Plaintiff 2’s above bodily distressed due to the Plaintiff 2’s above bodily distress as the president of Samsung C&A, who is a child and an arche, suffered emotional distress. However, in this case where there are no special circumstances to recognize consolation money, Plaintiff 1 is a person entitled to claim consolation money from Plaintiff 1, who is a guardian in the above status relationship and was designated as the president in this case, and cannot receive consolation money.

(4) Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2 the amount of 1,400,000 won (property damage 1,300,000 + 100,000 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from September 24, 1968, the next day of the above accident, to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff 2's claim of this case shall be accepted within the above recognized limit and the remainder shall be dismissed without any justifiable reasons. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 is just, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 2 is dismissed, and the claim of this case against the plaintiff 1 is without merit. Since the original judgment against the plaintiff 1 is just, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed, and since the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 1 is with merit, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff 1 against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed, and the defendant's claim against the plaintiff 1 against the plaintiff 1 shall be dismissed as to the costs of lawsuit by applying Article 969 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)