According to the purport of the oral argument and the facts established by the original judgment, the non-party, while doing so in the mine area owned by the defendant, has salved and salved by salved. The non-party's reasoning is that the non-party entered the workplace without the permission of the head of the working group at the time of the accident and put it into the workplace with heavy dynamics without the help of the post-san, and the accident caused the defects of the defendant's establishment (the failure to take security measures stipulated in Article 3 of the Mining Safety Act). However, if the non-party died due to the salvble roof accident such as recognition of the original judgment, the accident is presumed to have been caused by the defect of the defendant's establishment in the mine area, and even if the judgment was recognized by the non-party, even if the non-party was negligent, the non-party's negligence should be considered to have been caused by the non-party's fault, and it is reasonable to reverse the above defendant's mining establishment without any negligence.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet