1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Even if the State or a local government is not a public authority but a simple private economy entity, the State Compensation Act cannot be applied to the liability for damages, and the employer's liability is recognized under the Civil Act, and the State's railroad operation business is not a state's exercise of public authority, but a private and economic activity. Thus, even if a public official was involved in an accident caused by this accident, it is not subject to the State Compensation Act, but subject to the provisions of the general Civil Act. Thus, there is no need to take the procedure for charging compensation under the State Compensation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da6991, Jul. 22, 1997; 70Da961, Jul. 28, 1970); however, the State Compensation Act applies to a claim for damages against the State on the ground of tort caused by defects in the construction or management of railroad facilities, which are public structures.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim of this case on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not follow the procedure of full recovery of damages under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act, based on the premise that the State Compensation Act shall apply to the plaintiffs' claim of this case for tort caused by negligence in the course of performing duties by public officials belonging to the Korea Railroad, and for damages caused by defects in the construction and management of the guard station and platform installed and managed by the defendant. Since the part concerning the claim for damages caused by defects in the construction and management of public structures among the above measures of the court below is in accordance with the above legal principles, the part concerning the claim for damages caused by negligence by public officials' official duties is justified, but there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of application of the State Compensation Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, the court below's decision that the passenger transport contract of the plaintiff between the non-party's name and the defendant cannot be acknowledged as being concluded for the reasons stated in its holding is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the argument.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)