[손해배상청구사건][고집1974민(1),353]
Cases of denying the negligence of a pit driver;
In a case where a driver finds it out and stops a vehicle between the moment the breath is broken out without the driver's instruction at the pit in order to operate the direction transitioner even though the breath of the pit has undergone safety education on the prohibition of discharge, etc. in the pit during the operation of the pit, but the driver does not make any error in the driver, if the driver finds it and finds it out, but the driver does not stop the breath because of the low speed of operation, and causes the collision of water without stopping the breath.
Article 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and six others
Korea Coal Corporation
Seoul Central District Court (73Gahap2591) in the first instance trial
All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 1,446,774 won, 100,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 3,4,5,6, and7 with the amount of 50,000 won per annum from September 10, 1971 to the full payment system.
The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration
Judgment such as cancellation and purport of the original judgment
The plaintiffs' attorney, as the cause of the plaintiff's claim, has been employed by the above non-party 2 as early operator of the above mining center. It is sufficient that the non-party 1 knew of the above facts, despite the non-party 2's previous operation of the mining center Gap, the non-party 1's attendance at the above industrial center Gap, the non-party 1's instruction from the above industrial center, and the plaintiff 2's work of transporting the coal and tin to the pre-sale, the non-party 2's driver of the above mining center's 40 meters away from the pit for the above 15 meters away from the pit for the purpose of changing the course of the above pre-sale. The plaintiff 2's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's 2's testimony that the above plaintiff 2 had no other duty of care to inform the plaintiff 1's employees of the above facts. The plaintiff 1's previous operation of the plaintiff's walk's previous operation of the plaintiff's k.
Therefore, unlike this accident, the accident is nothing more than the negligence of the plaintiff 1 who neglected the duty of care to make a full stop after informing the driver that he would inevitably discharge his vehicle in the previous vehicle, but it is not the negligence of the non-party 2. Thus, the plaintiff 2's claim of the legal representative of the plaintiffs on the premise that the accident occurred due to the negligence in the performance of his duties, which was caused by the non-party 2's negligence, shall be dismissed without any necessity to identify the remaining facts, and therefore, the judgment of the court below in this conclusion is just, and the plaintiffs' appeal is without merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost, and it is so decided as per the Disposition.
Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)