Set-off of negligence in cases where a civilian has been on board a military vehicle and suffered damage from such vehicle accident.

In general, military vehicles are different from those of private vehicles, so it is recognized that the victims of this case, who are civilian, have taken advantage of the military vehicles involved in this accident, and the victims are responsible for negligence.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1321 delivered on August 29, 1967 (Dakh 1177; Supreme Court Decision 15Da1561 delivered on March 26, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 77Da1321 delivered on August 29, 1967 (Dakh 166; Supreme Court Decision 77Da3334 delivered on May 23, 1967 (No. 8590 delivered on March 26, 1967); Supreme Court Decision 763Da661 delivered on March 26, 1968 (No. 1194; Supreme Court Decision 763Da10571 delivered on March 16, 196; Supreme Court Decision 763Da1584 delivered on August 16, 197 (No. 1984); Supreme Court Decision No. 7581 delivered on May 26, 1964).

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul District Court of First Instance (66A6784)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 230,00 won with 20,000 won and 20,000 won per annum from August 7, 1963 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into two parts of the first and second instances, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the other one shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiffs' attorney (1) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 1,226,880 won with 30,000 won per annum from August 7, 1963 to the full payment day.

(2) The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The defendant (Appellant) litigation performer shall revoke (1) the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

(2) The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

(3) The court of first and second instances sought a judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

(1) is liable for damages;

On August 7, 1963, the driver of the 2.5 tons of the vehicle belonging to the 36th class in the transportation of the 36th class carrier of the defendant Paju Army, and Non-party 1, who was the driver of the 2.5 tons of the 36th class of the vehicle, caused the accident to the plaintiff 1, who was at the time of the bankruptcy of the 4.30 p.m. on the day on the 4.30 p.m. on the day, due to the negligence of his duties, and caused the injury to the plaintiff 1, who was responsible for the damage, such as the complexity of the bar,

Meanwhile, according to the contents of Gap evidence No. 3 without dispute over the above recognized facts and the plaintiff's own assertion of the court below, the plaintiff 1 was frighted at the road upstream the Nakdong River and was on board the accident with the consent to load the vehicle by private use during his returning home. Thus, even if the consent was obtained, the military vehicle is not likely to be engaged in the Gap's own operations duties at any time and is different from that of the general public, so the operation purpose of the vehicle itself is to be different from that of the general public, and thus, the fact that the plaintiff 1 was on the part of the civilian vehicle itself is negligent in the occurrence of the damage caused by the accident. Therefore, this is to be considered in calculating the amount of damage.

(2) property damage;

The negligence of the Plaintiff’s future revenue loss amounting to 228,047 won under the Hofman Calculation Act, which is admitted by the Plaintiff 1 as a member of the property damage claimed by the Plaintiff, and its reasons are the same as the reasoning of the original judgment, except for addition to the fact that the Defendant did not change the current amount of KRW 160 in the rural wage at the time of the accident in the trial. Therefore, this part of the judgment is also acceptable.

However, as seen earlier, the occurrence of the damages in this case is deemed to have been negligent for the Plaintiff, who is the victim, and considering this, the Defendant recognized that the amount of KRW 200,000 as property damages that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff is reasonable.

(3) Consolation money

Next, we examine the consolation money claimed by the plaintiffs.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, which does not dispute the formation, the plaintiff No. 2 is the father of the plaintiff No. 1 and the mother of the plaintiff No. 3 is recognized. Since the fact that the plaintiffs suffered mental pain as the victim or their parents due to the accident at issue can be recognized in light of the empirical rule, the defendant is obligated to inflict mental pain on the above plaintiffs. As to the amount, the family relation of the plaintiffs as recognized by the above evidence No. 1, the circumstance and result of the accident at issue, the treatment relationship of the plaintiff No. 1 which can be recognized by the testimony of the non-party No. 2 of the court below, the degree of the plaintiffs' property, etc., it is recognized that the consolation money is equivalent to 30,000 won for the plaintiff No. 1, and 20,000 won for the plaintiff No. 2 and 3, respectively.

(4) Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 20,00 to the plaintiff 1 the above-mentioned Doz. 230,000 and the plaintiff 2 and 3 respectively. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining part of the claims shall be accepted and dismissed. Since the original judgment differs in part from the original judgment, it is decided to revise it, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 92, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Byung-su (Presiding Judge)