The relationship between the bereaved family's benefits and the bereaved family's death benefits under the Military Aid Benefits Act and the compensation for damages;

The amount of consolation money for mental distress suffered by the bereaved family members under the Military Aid and Compensation Benefits Act and the amount of consolation money under the Military Aid and Compensation Benefits Act shall not be deducted from the amount of consolation money for property damage caused by the tort.

Military Aid Benefits Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da241 Decided November 5, 1968

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3636 delivered on March 14, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

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

The court below acknowledged the fact that the high-tension cable in which the accident of this case occurred is a facility managed by the defendant for the supply of electricity to the military unit. According to the records, such judgment is just, and the defendant was treated as a person who died on duty in the military, and it does not affect the above conclusion, and the amount of the survivor's pension already paid under the Military Aid Benefits Act and the amount of the consolation money paid under the Military Aid Benefits Act shall be deemed as having the nature of consolation money for mental shock suffered by the victim (Supreme Court Decision 68Da241 delivered on November 5, 1968). Thus, the deceased non-party who was the deceased as the case of this case while serving as the military personnel and received the bereaved family's benefits and the monthly survivor's pension from the Hoho Office, and such amount shall not be considered as the nature

In addition, it is not recognized that the loss set-off of the court below's approval of this case committed an unlawful act by recognizing less negligence of the above non-party.

Therefore, the court below's decision is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principle of comparative negligence as pointed out.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)