Article 39 of the Pension for Public Officials Act, the nature of the bereaved family pension or the bereaved family aid fund

A. In light of the purpose of the system, it cannot be deemed that the amount of the returned pension or the amount of the return to the family under the Public Officials Pension Act has the nature of compensation for damage caused by the death of the public official.

B. It cannot be deemed that the amount of survivor pension or bereaved family aid under the former Public Officials Pension Act (Act No. 1433, Nov. 1, 63) has the nature of compensation for damage caused by the death of a public official in light of the purpose of the system.

Articles 1, 39 and 40 of the Public Officials Pension Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1910 delivered on April 14, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The first ground for appeal by Defendant ○○○○○ is examined.

The judgment of the court below is based on evidence and empirical rule, and based on the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the deceased non-party who died from the accident of this case has occupational category of mechanical engineer news article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article article at the time of the accident, and he has received an average of 1,154 won per month during the accident of 1963. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, Dong-won still received the above amount of travel expense on board as an engineer's crew member until 55 years old age age who could have been engaged in his duty if he had not been the accident of this case). The above amount of travel expense on board is confirmed, and it is obvious that he received the above amount of travel expense on board as an engineer's crew member's above, and it is not clear that 3,000 won per month from the average total income (including daily income) of Dong-man's living expense on board article article article article article article article article article.

The second ground for appeal is examined.

As stated in Article 1 of the Public Officials Pension Act, the amount of the survivor pension, or the amount of assistance to bereaved family under Article 39 of the Public Officials Pension Act Article 40 of the same Act is paid to public officials for the purpose of establishing a social security system, establishing an economic stability for public officials and their bereaved family members, and contributing to the improvement of their welfare, it cannot be said that it has the nature of compensation for the death of public officials. Therefore, the contents of the judgment in the statement of theory in the original judgment are legitimate, and there is no argument about this issue.

The third point of the Dong shall be examined.

The court below calculated the Non-party's net profit (the net profit that he could have obtained if he did not die) of the Non-party who died due to the accident in this case on the basis of his salary and allowances and travel expenses, etc. as an engineer engaged in driving a vehicle at the time of his death, and even if they were to be profits from the provision of labor with physical pain and physical pain, they would not have been able to provide labor such as the above mentioned ones on the ground that they died due to the defendant's tort, even though they were to be profits from the provision of labor with physical and physical pain, they would not be able to calculate the net profit of the person's expectation on the ground that they died due to the defendant's tort (the defendant could not be deemed to have been able to have been able to have been able to receive by the deceased). Therefore, the argument on this point is groundless.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)