2016 Doz. 10345 Compensation, etc.

I and the other party to the lawsuit A

1. B

2. C.

3. D;

4. E.

5. F;

[Judgment of the court below]

1. H:

2. I

[Judgment of the court below]

November 9, 2018

December 7, 2018

1. The Defendants jointly pay to Plaintiff B 42,219,495 won, Plaintiff C, D, E, and F 25,146,30 won, respectively, and 5% per annum from March 18, 2016 to December 7, 2018, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff B 50,000,000,000 won for each of the above 50,000,000 won to Plaintiff C, D, E, and F, and 15% interest per annum from March 18, 2016 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Plaintiff B is the spouse of the deceased A (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and Plaintiff C, D, E, and F are the children of the deceased.

2) Defendant H is a person operating 00 points of Hyundai Motor Vehicle Blubs Hand (hereinafter “instant maintenance shop”) at the O of the Eup, public official, and official, and Defendant [the Defendant] is a motor vehicle maintenance technician working at the instant maintenance shop.

3) On March 18, 2016, the Deceased visited the instant repair center on or around 12:30, to request the Defendant to exchange one ton of cargo trucks (hereinafter “instant truck”) engine errors, and unloaded from the said truck.

4) 피고 I는 이 사건 트럭을 운전하여 이 사건 정비소에 있는 3대의 리프트 중 가운데 있는 리프트에 위 트럭을 올린 다음 운전석 부근에 서서 그곳에 매달린 리프트 리모컨으로 리프트를 상승시키고 있었다. 그러던 중 피고 가 서 있던 위치의 대각선 반대편인 이 사건 트럭 조수석 뒤쪽에서 '쿵'하는 소리가 크게 들려 피고 가 리프트를 정지한 후 소리가 나는 쪽으로 가보니 망인이 쓰러져 있었다(이하 '이 사건 사고'라 한다). 5) 이 사건 사고 당시 리프트는 피고 1의 상반신(명치 또는 배꼽 부근)까지 상승한 상태였고, 이 사건 트럭 조수석 뒷문이 열린 채 망인의 다리 쪽에는 위 트럭 안에 있었던 것으로 보이는 망인의 수첩이 바닥에 떨어져 있었다. 또한 사고 당일 비가 와 이 사건 정비소 바닥은 물론 리프트 바닥도 미끄러운 상태였고, 이 사건 트럭이 올라가 있는 리프트 주변에는 리프트 작동 시 접근금지 및 위험을 알리는 표시가 없었다.

6) On June 8, 2018, the Deceased died on the ground of the instant accident, around 21:50, while receiving treatment due to an injury, such as dubing dubs, dubing, and dubal dubing, dubing, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8 through 10, 14, 17 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Recognition of liability for damages

1) In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above fact-finding, namely, the time and location of the Deceased’s go beyond, the place away from the pocketbook, the height of the lifts immediately after the instant accident, the injury of the Deceased, the rain on the day of the instant accident, and the floor of the maintenance center of the instant building and the lifts were dissiped, etc., the Deceased appears to have been exposed to Defendant 1’s access to the lifts work, and thus, to search for the pocketbooks from the top of the instant truck.

2) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to neglect of the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents due to the operation of a set, such as preventing access to the instant truck or set, by examining whether there was a person approaching the instant truck or set area in the course of using the set.

① Defendant merely stated to the effect that the Deceased left the instant truck, and did not warning the Deceased to the effect that he would enter the office, and did not take a warning of the risks, such as that he would not enter the office, or not have access to the area adjacent to the lifts, as the sprinking work would be dangerous. Moreover, even if the Deceased did not enter the office, and reported that he left the office and left the office at a distance of approximately one meter after the truck, the Defendant started the sprinking work as it is.

② The location of the Defendant’s operation of the lifts, that is, in the vicinity of the driver’s seat of the instant truck, does not seem to have the opposite side. While checking whether there is a person around the lifts, at the time of the instant accident, he/she increased the lifts without verifying it at the time of the instant accident.

③ The Defendant himself also stated that, as a relation in which lifts works in an investigative agency with the voltage, there is concern that, when a lifts starts from the place of work under the foregoing, there is a concern about the death or injury of a person, and the sections inside the workplace are all iron materials, and the floor of the instant maintenance facility may be cut off by a slicking, other customers outside the workplace should not enter the workplace.

① The evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants alone can not clearly confirm whether the time when the deceased was on the back-line, and if so, whether the time when the deceased was on the back-line was prior to the commencement of the off-line increase work by the Defendant. However, even if the deceased was not on the back-line, he did not open the instant truck steering door, cut off the string door, cut off the string, cut off the string on the string, cut off the string, and unfolded off the string, and caused the instant accident, Defendant I has the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident, even if it was difficult to directly verify the operation of the off-line, by having another person check the surrounding area, or by having the deceased’s entry into the string.

3) Furthermore, Defendant H, as an employer of the Defendant, has breached its duty of management and supervision so that safety accidents, such as thoroughly providing Defendant I with safety education to fulfill the foregoing caution. Furthermore, Defendant H, as the owner of the instant maintenance shop used by the general public, bears the duty of care to prevent customers from entering the workplace where various dangerous maintenance facilities are installed by installing or giving sufficient warning to customers who visited the workplace, etc., by installing a sign of restrictions on access or a dangerous sign of access at a place readily visible to the public. However, Defendant H, as the owner of the instant maintenance shop used by the general public, bears the duty of care to prevent them from entering the workplace where various dangerous maintenance facilities are installed. However, the failure to install any warning sign or dangerous sign at the instant maintenance shop, caused the accident by allowing the Deceased to access the lifts in operation without having any awareness of the occurrence of safety accidents.

As to this, Defendant H asserts to the effect that the deceased had been well aware of the structure of the workplace of this case and the method of operation of the Rift, which had been installed three years prior to the accident of this case, and was aware of the directions for the access prohibition sign. According to the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the deceased visited the maintenance center of this case several times from 2013 to the accident of this case, but it is insufficient to view that the deceased, who is engaged in the farming day, was well aware of the existence of risk factors in the maintenance center of this case, and there is no other evidence to support this. Accordingly, Defendant H’s above assertion is without merit.

4) As seen earlier, since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the Defendants, Defendant I is a tort, and Defendant H is also a tort and Defendant I’s employer, and is jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising from the accident of this case.

C. Limitation on liability

However, even though the Deceased’s access to the instant truck without any particular seal is prohibited, it appears that the instant accident occurred while the Deceased did not clearly recognize the fact near the lifts. Since such negligence was caused by the occurrence and expansion of damage, it is decided to take this into account in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendants, the Defendants’ liability ratio is limited to 40%.

2. The period of time for calculation below the scope of liability for damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but the amount below the last month and below the won shall be discarded, and the present price shall be calculated by the simple discount method which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month. In addition, it shall be rejected that the parties' arguments are not separately explained. [Grounds for Recognition] The parties' arguments are without dispute, the entries in Gap 3 through 7, 10 through 13, and 15 through 18, the results of physical appraisal commissioned to the Director of the Korean National University University Hospital at the Gyeyang University at this Court, the entire purport of the arguments as a whole;

(a) Property damage;

(i) lost earnings;

(A) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

(1) Date of the occurrence of an accident: March 18, 2016

(2) Gender and age: male (the birth of September 25, 1942) and 73 years and 73 years and 73 years and 73 years and 73 years and 73 years and 73 years and 73 years and 18 March 18, 2017 at the time of the instant accident, although the deceased was about 73 years of age at the time of the instant accident, it appears that he was engaged in agriculture in the large Magdong-ri, Magdong-si, Magdong-si without any particular problem, and considering the change of average number of persons, the deceased may obtain at least a amount of income equivalent to the rural daily wage until March 18, 2017 from the date of the instant accident.

(d) Ratio of loss of labor capacity: 100% (applicable to categories 2 on the Mabro World table, brain, IN-B-4). Total of 31,134,93 won (actual income)

A person shall be appointed.

2) Fees: Total of KRW 36,897,571

3) Costs of purchasing assistive equipment: Total 1,300,000 1)

4) Nursing expense: A total of KRW 157,679,477, the Deceased was suffering from high brain damage, such as external wounds, due to the instant accident, and was in the so-called plant requiring continuous management, such as the maintenance of respiratory and temperature through an organ renovation, the supply of food through a public official with misconduct, blaging, and lectures. Ultimately, the Deceased died only for about three years after the instant accident occurred. In light of the foregoing circumstances, it seems that there was a need for nursing by two adult women from March 18, 2016, which is the date of the instant accident, to June 8, 2018, from March 18, 2016 to the date of death.

【Damage to Nursing Expenses】

A person shall be appointed.

(b) Funeral expenses: 5,00,000 (Plaintiff B’s expenditure). Fruits shall be offset by negligence;

1) Liability ratio of the Defendants: 40%

(ii)Calculation;

A) Property damage of the deceased: Funeral expenses: 90,804,816 won (=31,134,93 won (actual income) + 36,897,571 won (the purchase cost of an auxiliary Gu) + 1,300,000 won (the purchase cost of an auxiliary Gu) + 157,679,477 won (the purchase cost of an auxiliary Gu) + 0.4b): 2,000,000 won (=5,00,000 won x 0.4)

(d) Condolence money;

1) Reasons for taking into account: The deceased’s age, family relationship, degree of negligence, circumstance of the instant accident, degree of tort committed by the Defendants, and all other circumstances shown in the instant argument, including that the deceased was hospitalized for a long time after the instant accident and subsequently died before the closure of the argument.

(ii) the amount determined;

A) Deceased: 20,000,000 won

B) Plaintiff B: 10,000,000 won

C) Plaintiff C, D, E, and F: each of KRW 5,000,000.

(e) Inheritance relationship;

1) Plaintiff B: 42,219,495 won = [(property damage of the deceased + (property damage 90,804,816 won + 20,000,000 won of consolation money of the Deceased + 3/11] + Funeral expenses of KRW 2,00,000 + Principal consolation money of KRW 10,00,000];

2) Plaintiff C, D, E, and F respectively: KRW 25,146,30 [Plaintiffs 25,146,30 [Plaintiffs 90,804,816 + X inheritance shares of the Deceaseds 20,000,000] + 5,000,000 won for one’s consolation money]

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have a duty to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from March 18, 2016, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendants’ obligation to perform, with respect to each of the above amounts of KRW 42,219,495, Plaintiff C, D, E, and F, and each of the above amounts of KRW 25,146,30, from March 18, 2016, the date of the instant accident, until December 7, 2018, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges and judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Efficacy

Judges Kang Sung-young

1) (i) Wheel chairss KRW 500,00 + Etwit lease KRW 300,000 for the prevention of bathing rooms + KRW 500,000 for beds)