업무상과실치사,업무상과실치상
2015Do3535 Injury by occupational negligence, death by occupational negligence
1. A;
2. B
3. C
Defendants
Law Firm D, Attorney CB, E (Defendant A and C)
Law Firm (Limited LLC, Attorneys BV and B (Defendant B)
CC Law Firm, Attorneys CDA, I (for Defendant B)
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No268 Decided February 12, 2015
March 13, 2018
All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Based on its reasoning, the court below found that the explosion accident of this case occurred as stated in the facts charged as a result of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, and found that (1) Defendant A violated the duty of care to ensure the normal operation of safety valves in the process of test operation conducted after repair and operation of the boiler of this case; (2) Defendant B was negligent in having Defendant A, who did not hold a certificate of boiler handling the boiler, to take the necessary measures immediately while maintaining the abnormal operation of the boiler in the process of test operation conducted after repair and operation of the boiler of this case; and (3) Defendant C was negligent in having the Defendant A, who did not hold a certificate of boiler handling the boiler, to take the necessary measures immediately; and (2) the occurrence of the explosion accident of this case was combined with such negligence, and (3) the Defendants were jointly and severally responsible for the safe test operation of the boiler of this case or normal operation of the boiler of this case, and found the facts charged as a result of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation in the charges of this case.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Chang-suk
Justices Jo Hee-de
Justices Min You-sook of the District Court