Where an accident occurs due to the negligence of the following truck driver while connecting the truck with each other, the responsibility under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act for the owner of the front truck.

If it is deemed that an employment relationship, etc. is closely related between the owner of a motor vehicle and is operated for the owner in view of objective and external aspects from the ordinary operation and management status of the motor vehicle, the owner is the person who operates the motor vehicle for his/her own sake. In order to practice driving, if the accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver following the driving, the owner of the motor vehicle is also the person who operates the motor vehicle for his/her own sake as provided in Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and is jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damage.

Article 760 of the Civil Act; Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; Article 4 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and one other

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to Plaintiffs 1 and 2 an amount of KRW 7,742,322 each of them, KRW 500,000, and an amount of KRW 500 per annum from March 19, 1984 to the date of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 an annual amount of KRW 8,571,230, and to the Plaintiffs 3 and 4 each amount of KRW 500,000 from March 19, 1984 to the date of service of the instant reargument, and to the date of full payment, an amount of KRW 50,000 per annum from the next day to the date of service of the instant reargument.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The above 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 4, 2, 3, 3, 1, 4, 3 (the same as 4, 1) of the above 1, 3 (the traffic accident report, 1, 7) of the same 4, 4, 5 (the same as 6, 7) of the above 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 6 (the above 1, 1, 1) of the above 1, 8, 1, 8 (the indictment) of the above 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 3, and 1.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants are the owners of the above LF Truck and the above dump truck who run the above truck on their own, and therefore, they are responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for all damages caused by the accident in this case. The defendants demanded that the plaintiff 2, who did not have a driver's license, as the Boroke Park of the above factory, carry a driving practice to the non-party 1, the operator of the above factory, even though the date of the accident in this case was the day off of the above factory. Thus, the non-party 1 consented to this and brought the key of the above dump truck in the above factory office as gap truck and brought the accident in this case while driving the above dump truck at the above factory office. Accordingly, the defendants could not be said to have obtained any operational benefits at the time of the accident in this case, or have controlled the operation of the above truck, and therefore the defendants do not dispute the above truck in this case.

As seen earlier, Nonparty 1, a driver of the above factory, brought the keys of the above dump truck without permission from the office of the above factory to drive the above dump truck without permission. Nonparty 2 is recognized as having caused the accident while towing the above dump truck and adjusting the hand of the above dump truck, but the owner of the above dump truck is closely related to the employment relationship, etc. between the owner of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle, and if it is deemed that the above dump truck was operated for the owner in an objective and external manner from the ordinary operation and management status of the vehicle, the owner is a person operating the vehicle for his own sake. Accordingly, Nonparty 1, who is operating the above dump truck as a driver of the above factory, brought the above dump truck from the office of the above factory to the above dump truck, driving the above dump truck without permission, and excluded the Defendants from operating control over the above dump truck, which is the above dump truck from the defendants's traffic relationship.

Therefore, the defendants are the persons operating dump trucks and the above dump trucks for their own own, and due to the accident of this case, they are liable for all damages suffered by the above non-party deceased and the plaintiffs who are in their status relationship with the above non-party deceased and the above dump trucks, and the above defendants' responsibilities are in a non-

2. Scope of damages.

A. The non-party 3's lost profit

(1) In light of the above evidence Nos. 7 and 5 (Korean Person’s Life Table), and evidence Nos. 6 (Construction Price), each of which is without dispute, Nonparty 3’s physical health as of February 23, 1978, left six years of age at the time of the instant accident, and its average life expectancy exceeded 67.34 years. At the time of the instant accident, the fact that the daily wage of the urban female women as of December 31, 1982 at the time of the instant accident is about 4,000 won per day can be acknowledged, and there is no other counter-proof, and the fact that Nonparty 3’s living cost requires 1/3 of monthly income from Nonparty 3 is not disputed between the parties, and it is evident that the empirical rule can be applied until the age of 55 years ends once a month.

According to this, Non-party 3 was able to obtain the net income of 6,66 won (1,00 won x 2/3, less than won) monthly from the monthly income of 100,00 won (4,000 won x 25) for at least 432 months from February 23, 1998 when he was 20 years old to 55 years old if he had not been subjected to the accident of this case, and was engaged in daily work and deducts the living expenses from the monthly income of 1,00,000 won (4,000 won x 2/3, and less than won) for the period from February 22, 2034. The plaintiffs were able to obtain the net income of this case from the accident of this case x 6,666 won x 164164,564,654,4165,67,4164,564,567,416,54,54,467.

(2) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendants asserted that Plaintiff 2 went back to Nonparty 3, his father, who was his father, who was his 6 years old, at the time of the instant accident, and went back to the instant accident, and followed the said Plaintiff alone, and that the instant accident took place concurrently with the Plaintiff’s negligence that was not returned to the Republic of Korea while protecting Nonparty 3, who is in short of the risk of death. Therefore, in determining the scope of the Defendants’ compensation for damages, the Defendants’ negligence should also be considered in determining the scope of the damages in this case. Accordingly, in full view of all the statements and arguments made by Nonparty 2 as stated in the evidence No. 1-8 (statement of Statement) and the purport of the oral argument, Plaintiff 2, who was the first-year student of the national school of the age of 6, went home to the market, who was her father, and went home to the market, before Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 3, who was married to the instant accident site, the Defendant’s fault and negligence did not recognize the Plaintiff 2’s liability of this case.

B. The consolation money for Nonparty 3 and the plaintiffs

Since it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the non-party 3 was killed due to the accident in this case, and that the plaintiffs who are related to the above recognition were suffering from a considerable mental suffering respectively, the defendants are obligated to do so in money. In light of the circumstances and result of the accident in this case, the non-party 3 and the plaintiffs' age, family relations, and all other circumstances shown in the argument in this case, the consolation money amount shall be determined to the non-party 3 as KRW 2,00,000, KRW 1,000,000, KRW 3, and KRW 500,000, respectively to the non-party 3 and 4.

(c) Inheritance relationship;

The above-mentioned damages of Nonparty 3 13,484,645 won (the lost earnings of KRW 11,484,645 + KRW 2,00,000 + KRW 2,000), which is the property inheritor, succeeded to each of the KRW 6,742,322 (the amount less than KRW 13,484,645 x 1/2) according to the respective shares of the property.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to plaintiffs 1 and 2 7,742,322 won each (6,742,322 won each per annum + 1,000,000 won each of the above materials) to plaintiffs 3 and 4, and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from March 19, 1984 to the date of the accident of this case. (The plaintiffs claim that damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day of delivery of this case to the date of full payment. However, the defendant's claim for damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in Article 3 (2) of the same Act is reasonable, and the defendant's claim for damages for delay shall not be accepted by applying Article 3 (2) of the same Act to the remainder of the above claim within the scope of 9 of provisional execution.

Judges' inducement (Presiding Judge)