If a light damaged by a first-lane mining accident has died due to a second-lane traffic accident thereafter, the range of compensation to be paid by mining managers shall be limited.

In the event that the mining area injured due to the first-lane mining accident has died after being the second-lane traffic accident, the second-lane situation is not considered when there is a conditional relationship between the first-lane mining accident and the second-lane accident, and the perpetrator of the accident is not considered. However, if there is no conditional relationship between the first and the second-lane accident, the perpetrator of the first accident should compensate for only the damage until the victim dies.

Articles 750, 763, and 393 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others (2) and (3) are minors, and they are legal representatives, Attorneys Kim Jung-il, Counsel for the plaintiff 1 who is entitled to parental authority

Attorney Song-tae, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1069 delivered on December 14, 1978

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 4 and the plaintiff 5 is dismissed.

The judgment of the court below between the plaintiff 1, 2, 3 and the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The costs of appeal between the plaintiff 4 and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) The judgment of the court below is examined between the plaintiff 4 and the defendant 5.

According to the evidence of the court below, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs cannot be dismissed, because the non-party 1 (Ah above plaintiffs) is a consolation money for mental suffering of the above plaintiffs due to the non-party 1 (Ah above plaintiffs) in this case, such as the statement of the court below, and the court below's disposition which cited 80,000 won each of the above plaintiffs, is just and there is no error in law in the court below's disposition.

(2) We examine the Defendant’s first ground of appeal against Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3.

The court below found the defendant's defense that the defendant's defense, i.e., the defendant's defense that the non-party 1 died due to other traffic accidents on July 15, 1978 after he was faced with the defendant's security guard (non-party 2) in the direction of the defendant's Dominary mining center, which was November 25, 1977, in which the non-party 1 suffered from the accident caused by the accident like the plaintiff's explanation, and that the defendant's defense that the non-party 1 died due to the above traffic accident, i.e., the damage after the death is compensated by the victim's natural death and the defendant is compensated by only the damage until the death of the victim, if it is proved that the victim's average life is different from the other third party's natural death, even if the death was caused by the other third party's harmful act, the court below determined

In the case of the first accident (in this case, the injury caused by the second accident in the defendant's mining office, i.e., the death caused by the second accident) and the second accident (in this case, the death caused by the second accident), it is not necessary to consider the second accident (the death caused by the second accident) if there is any condition relationship between the second accident and the second accident. Thus, if there is no condition relationship between the second accident and the second accident, the perpetrator of the first accident should compensate for the total amount of damages caused by the second accident, i.e., the death caused by the second accident, without considering the death caused by the second accident. However, if there is no condition relationship between the first accident and the second accident, the perpetrator of the first accident should compensate only the damage until the victim died due to the second accident.

However, the reasoning of the lower judgment alone cannot be readily determined as to whether there exists a condition relationship as stated above between the principal accident of the lower judgment and the traffic accident, and if there is no condition relationship between the two, the part which cited the amount of damages after the death of the above non-party 1 cannot be deemed unlawful and this error affects the result of the lower judgment. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that did not err in its determination on the remaining grounds that it is unnecessary to reverse the judgment in this regard.

(3) Therefore, the defendant's appeal against plaintiffs 4 and 5 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and 5 are assessed against the defendant. The judgment of the court below between plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 and the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)