When the military service is completed after the point of import is attained majority in calculating the amount of damage resulting from the lost profits of a minor male who do not have completed the military service, such service period shall be calculated.

Article 18(2)1 of the Military Service Act provides that the period of active duty service in the Army is two years. However, according to Article 20 Subparag. 1 of the same Act, the Minister of National Defense may extend the period of active duty service within one year with the approval of the President after deliberation by the State Council, in the event of a situation corresponding to a war, incident, or other military units, or the increase or establishment of military units, etc. for national defense. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the period of active duty service in the Army is three years in general, since

Articles 18 and 20 of the Military Service Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 67Da401 decided May 16, 1967 (Law No. 763Na 3(24) of the Civil Code No. 763Na 1342 decided May 16, 196)

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Defendant

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 1,00,000, KRW 500,000 per annum from April 7, 1987 to September 7, 1988, and an amount of KRW 25 percent per annum from September 8, 1988 to the full payment date. 2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are divided into three parts, one of which is the plaintiffs, and the other is the defendant's own burden.

4.Paragraph 1 may be provisionally executed only for 2/3 of each money.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of KRW 2,00,000, KRW 1,000, and KRW 50,000 per annum from April 7, 1987 to the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the amount of KRW 25,00 per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

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

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

Considering the whole purport of evidence No. 1 (No. 1), Gap evidence No. 2 (Motor Vehicle Register), Gap evidence No. 6 (C. 7), Gap evidence No. 8-3, 4 (Written Opinion), 5, and 6 (Reports on Traffic Accidents), and the whole purport of oral pleadings without dispute, the defendant driving a small-sized passenger car owned by Dong race No. 1 (Motor Vehicle Number omitted) No. 15:30 on Apr. 7, 1987, with the inside side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the plaintiff, and driving a small-sized passenger car No. 9 (Motor Vehicle Number omitted) No. 168-14 on the front side of the front side of the road, and in such cases, it is possible for the plaintiff to cross the road, and thus, the defendant could not take any measures against the plaintiff's parent's remaining side of the road without the plaintiff's duty of care to reduce the speed of driving the vehicle and find it late to the left side of the road.

Therefore, the defendant is a person who operates an automobile for himself under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and is obliged to compensate for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above accident caused by the operation of the automobile.

Meanwhile, in full view of the above evidence Nos. 7, 8-3, 5, and 6 as well as the whole purport of the oral argument, in order for the plaintiff 1 to cross the road as the plaintiff 1, it can be recognized that the plaintiff 1 was caused by the accident while crossing the 4-lane road, instead of the crosswalk, without due care, in spite of the fact that the vehicle, etc. had a duty of care to properly examine the situation of the situation of the situation of the vehicle, etc., and then crossing the road. However, such negligence of the plaintiff 1 was caused by the accident of this case, but it is not enough to refer only to the determination of the amount of damages to be paid by the defendant as it did not reach the extent that the defendant would be exempted from the responsibility of the defendant.

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

In full view of evidence No. 1, evidence No. 3 (re-certification), evidence No. 4-1, 2 (Simplified Life Table and Contents), evidence No. 5-1, 2 (Construction Price Mark and Contents) from the front of the accident, the physical examination result of this court's request to the head of the Sungbin Hospital, and the whole purport of oral argument, Plaintiff 1 was the healthy male male who left 6 years old and 9 years old at the time of the accident of this case, who was 5 years old at the time of the accident of this case, and was enrolled in the first year of Samsung National School in Ansanyangyang-dong at the time of the accident of this case, and was hospitalized in the middle of 1, 4-2 (Simplified Life Table and Contents), and evidence No. 5-1, 5-2 (Construction Price Mark and Contents), and the remaining fact that the average male male labor of this case could still be recognized as having been employed on 1,000 days near to the date of the accident of this case.

According to the above facts, even if the plaintiff 1 had not been subject to the above accident, at least 205,00 won per month may be employed for the above general urban labor unless there are special circumstances x 205,00 won per month (gold 8,200 x 25). However, the plaintiff's attorney's allegation that the plaintiff's active service period was 23 years old due to the above accident (within 194 months from the date of the accident in question or within 105 months from the date of the plaintiff's attorney's request for the calculation of 22 years old and 408 years old, it is clear that the plaintiff 1 had been under 20 years old and completed the above military service . Thus, according to the Presidential Decree No. 18 (2) 1 of the Military Service Act, the plaintiff's attorney's allegation that the plaintiff's active service period was 20 years old and less than 5 years old and thus, it is not possible to obtain an interim payment of damages within the period of 10 years old and 2 years.

(b) Expenses for future treatment;

According to the above physical appraisal result, plaintiff 1 shall receive treatment, such as brain salphy for about two years (for the last ten months) from the date of the above accident (for the last ten months), and may recognize the fact that 677,000 won was spent for the treatment expenses, and there is no other counter-proof. Thus, plaintiff 1 shall have suffered damage equivalent to the above treatment expenses due to the accident in this case.

(c) Negligence offsetting, etc.;

Therefore, all of the property damages suffered by Plaintiff 1 arising from the above accident are KRW 12,450,186 (gold KRW 11,773,186 + KRW 67,00). However, considering that Plaintiff 1 was negligent as seen earlier, it is reasonable to determine the amount of damages for the property to be compensated to Plaintiff 1 with KRW 8,715,130 (gold KRW 12,450,186 + 70/100). Meanwhile, according to the whole purport of the arguments and evidence Nos. 1, 2 (each payment table of insurance money), the amount of damages suffered by the Defendant was 3,428,640 won for Plaintiff 1's medical expenses on behalf of the Defendant, KRW 1,750, KRW 715, KRW 750 for the above amount of damages to be compensated to Plaintiff 1 and KRW 1,750, KRW 150, KRW 715, KRW 415,015 for the above amount of damages.

(d) Condolence money;

In the accident of this case, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff 1 suffered an injury as above and the remaining plaintiffs in the status as seen above suffered a lot of mental suffering. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above plaintiffs' mental suffering in money. Furthermore, considering all the circumstances such as the circumstance and result of the accident of this case as seen earlier, the degree of negligence, the above plaintiffs' age, status status, occupation, property, and education as shown in the argument of this case, etc., it is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff 1 for 1,00,000 won for 1,00,000,000 won for 4, 5, and 6 respectively for 5,000,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 1.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 9,157,788 won (gold KRW 7,157,788 + KRW 2,000,000, KRW 5000 each for the plaintiff 4,5,000 and each of them to the plaintiff 2, and 3, respectively. Thus, from April 7, 1987, which is the date of the tort of this case, it is reasonable to dispute about the scope of the defendant's obligation in this case from April 7, 1987 to September 7, 198, the amount of five percent per annum, which is the civil statutory interest rate, from September 8, 198 to the date of full payment, and the damages for delay at the rate of twenty five percent per annum per annum, which is stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings, etc., to the extent that the plaintiffs' claims in this case are justified and all of them are dismissed. Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the remainder of this case.

Judges Cho Jong-han (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) for gambling and Kim Young-young