[손해배상등][집15(3)민,148]
Cases not considered in the calculation of the amount of damages;
In the event of an accident due to the failure to avoid the direction of the gun while knowing the fact that he/she only required to display the gun in his/her possession and to cut off the charged gun, the victim is also at fault.
Article 396 of the Civil Act; Article 751(1) of the Civil Act; Article 763 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3427 delivered on June 7, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3427 delivered on July 7, 1967
The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and this part is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
(1) On the first ground of appeal, the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant firearms are as follows.
In other words, Plaintiff 1 Byung, the injured party of the Plaintiff 1 Byung, was the perpetrator, and the Nonparty, the perpetrator of the Plaintiff 1, who was the Nonparty, was the perpetrator, was fluor of the rifle. The Nonparty, the perpetrator, was fluordding the rifle in the window. However, the Plaintiff 1, who was the victim of the Plaintiff 1, was fluor of the rifle again fluorh due to the lack of carbon refund, and the Plaintiff’s fluorh was fluorh caused the Plaintiff’s clothes that were on the left half of the bar. As such, the Plaintiff 1, the perpetrator, the perpetrator, was fluorh, and the Nonparty was fluorh, and it was caused by the Nonparty’s use of the rifle in the performance of official duties. However, it is difficult to view that the Nonparty’s use of the rifle was the safe use of the rifle at the time of the Nonparty’s use of the rifle as it was the Nonparty’s use of the rifle.
(2) As to the second part, the victim, as seen above, was negligent in failing to keep the direction of the gun from the counter-speak distance from firearms with the knowledge of the fact that the non-party was demanded to display the gun in hand without any justifiable reason, and the victim did not escape the direction of the gun from the counter-speak distance. Such negligence should be considered in calculating the damages of this case. However, it is essential to say that the court below's failure to take these negligence into account is unlawful. Accordingly, the appeal is with merit, and therefore, the part against the defendant is reversed, and that part is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
Justices Hong Ma-dong (Presiding Justice)