[손해배상(산)][공1998.1.1.(49),93]
[1] The case holding that the person who occupied the swimming pool shall be liable for damages caused by the negligence in the installation and preservation of the structure in case of an accident caused by the opening of the swimming pool without being equipped with safety facilities
[2] Whether the fact-finding or the decision on the ratio of comparative negligence to comparative negligence is an exclusive right of the fact-finding court (affirmative)
[3] The deadline for filing an appeal and the deadline for filing an incidental appellate brief
[1] The case holding that the possessor of a swimming pool is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the victims due to an accident caused by negligence, as the possessor of the swimming pool is the possessor of the swimming pool, as the possessor of the swimming pool, due to the negligence in the installation and preservation of the swimming pool or the negligence in the construction and maintenance of the swimming pool and the negligence in the maintenance of the depth of 1.2 meters from the bottom of the swimming pool without installing the above facilities, although he/she is required to install a depth control device or a counterfeited swimming pool so that the possessor of the swimming pool can open the swimming pool originally installed as a swimming pool for the purpose of practice by the general public, but he/she is required to take measures so that the general public may not have any big shockness by cutting water into the swimming pool, and without installing the above facilities.
[2] The fact-finding or the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case falls under the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity.
[3] Appellee may make an incidental appeal even after the right to appeal is extinguished, but it shall file an incidental appeal within the period for submitting the appellate brief and submit the incidental appellate brief.
[1] Articles 750 and 758(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Act, Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 372, 395, and 397 of the Civil Procedure Act
[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da52402 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1281), Supreme Court Decision 95Da17267 delivered on July 25, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2955) Supreme Court Decision 95Da24340 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 659) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Da46394 delivered on January 26, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 861), Supreme Court Decision 94Da27113 delivered on February 3, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1150), Supreme Court Decision 95Da36375 delivered on October 16, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 197).
Plaintiff 1
Plaintiff 2 and three others
Daegu Facility Management Corporation (Attorney Park Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Daegu department store (Attorney Zoo-won, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu High Court Decision 96Na1864 delivered on July 10, 1997
The defendant's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff 1.
1. The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.
A. The court below found facts as stated in its reasoning based on its evidence, and found that the accident of this case occurred due to the accident of this case, which occurred from the negligence in the installation and preservation of the above two swimming pools or general illegal acts, as the possessor of the above two swimming pools, in order to open the two swimming pools installed as the sports swimming pool for the general public for the practice of the general public, by installing a water-saving control device or a counterfeited cutting board at least 1.2 meters in depth, and collecting water, and thus preventing the general public from being exposed to a big shock, but without installing the above facilities, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the above two swimming pools or general illegal acts, and thus, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case, which occurred from the negligence in the installation and preservation of the above two swimming pools or the negligence in the above safety facilities. In light of the records, the court below's determination and determination are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there are no errors in the judgment below.
B. The fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence in a tort compensation case is subject to the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da17267, Jul. 25, 1995). In light of the overall circumstances at the time of the instant case acknowledged by the record, it is deemed that the lower court’s assessment of the ratio of negligence by Plaintiff 1 to 60% is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine of comparative negligence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. We examine Plaintiff 1’s grounds of incidental appeal.
Appellee may make an incidental appeal even after the right to appeal is extinguished, but it is obvious that the plaintiff 1 has filed an incidental appeal 20 days after the date on which the notice of receipt of the record of appeal was served on the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da46394, Jan. 26, 1993). Thus, the incidental appeal of the above plaintiff 1 is unlawful and it is impossible to correct the defect.
3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the appeal by the plaintiff 1 is dismissed, and the costs of appeal and the appeal by the plaintiff 1 are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)