[손해배상][공1977.1.15.(552),9818]
The driver of a railroad station who has not closed the opening space before the departure of the train and the State's liability for damages caused by negligence that the Deputy Director has not closed the door of the train entrance.
The State shall be liable for damages caused by the negligence of a public official who did not take a measure under the provisions of Article 2 and Article 8 subparag. 3 of the Railroad Transport Regulations and Article 310 of the Operation Rules (No. 2018 of the Directive of the Korea Railroad Office, Dec. 21, 1967) that were in force at the time, namely, the negligence of the official, who did not close the opening hole one minute prior to the launch of the train and left the place and caused by the negligence of the official, which caused the passengers to leave through the opening hole even though the time of the entrance has elapsed, against the occurrence of the accident and the negligence of the failure to close the door of the train entrance for the safety of the passengers.
Plaintiff 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 75Na1270 delivered on July 2, 1976
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation performer;
According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the original judgment, the court below held that the accident of this case was not caused by the mistake of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2, the vice governor, and the plaintiff 1, the vice governor of the train, as the plaintiff 1 did not have any duty to close the passenger car and the low cost before driving in accordance with the operation rules, and that the plaintiff 1 did not close the opening exit before the departure of the train, and the plaintiff 2, the vice governor of the train, as the plaintiff 1 did not leave the place, should prepare for the occurrence of the same accident, and close the door cost of the train entrance for the safety of the passengers, and even if the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 1 and the vice governor did not have any such duty to open the train before the departure of the train, the plaintiff 1 and the vice governor did not have any such duty to open the train before the departure of the train, and therefore, the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 1 and the vice governor did not have any such duty to inform the plaintiff 1 as the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)