[손해배상][집14(2)민,013]
Monopoly Enterprises, and Liability without Negligence
If a passenger gets on a train, it is prepared to cut the train to a designated train by cutting the train, and even though the station guidance personnel is prevented, if an accident occurred in the same vehicle, the State shall not be held liable if the accident occurred because the passenger gets off the line, which is under the vehicle of a stringer, without cutting the train, with the desire to get out earlier than the other one, and the line, the passage of which is prohibited, is set up under the vehicle of a stringer, and the vehicle is under the process of returning it to the train.
Article 758 of the Civil Code, Article 3 (1) of the State Compensation Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Korea
Daegu High Court Decision 65Na345 delivered on January 13, 1966
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
In the reverse station, the signal number at the time of the occurrence of this case can be sent near the left side and the signal number at the time of the occurrence of this case can be seen as being engaged in the signal brokerage service, so it is reasonable that the original judgment has no negligence on the left side of the train, and that the signal number at the time of the occurrence of this case has no negligence on the signal number at the right side of the train. In addition, the purport of the original judgment is that the signal number at the time of the occurrence of this case has no negligence on the signal number at the time of the signal transmission service as well as on the right side of the train, and the purport of the original judgment is clear that the signal number at the time of the occurrence of this case has no negligence on the signal number, and it is reasonable that the original judgment has no negligence on the signal number, and that there is no reason to criticize the original judgment on the contrary.
The second point is examined for the same reason.
According to the testimony of the witness in the first instance trial adopted by the original judgment, beginning opening of the passenger in the navigation train at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of this case, the opening of the passenger in the navigation train from 1 to 25 minutes prior to the starting time, and at the entrance of the home at the time of the entrance of the home, it is possible to look at the fact that the passenger in the way of the entrance at the entrance of the house was informed to the passengers. Thus, the above witness examination protocol is not considered in detail, or on the premise of the fact or circumstance that the original judgment was not accepted
The third and fourth points are examined for the same reason.
In the original judgment at the time of the accident, it was legitimate to hold that there was no such an emergency situation as to the suspension of the operation of the train for passengers and the operation of the train, such as small-area 1 or passenger stations, and there was no such emergency situation as to the suspension of the operation of the train. In addition, there was no such an incomplete trial as small-scale clock, and passengers are placed on the designated train by cutting the train, and the station click was placed on the designated train. Despite the fact that the station click was set up, there was no desire to cleep the train more than the other click in the navigation of the train which was stopped on the third half of the train, and the vehicle click with the vehicle 30 tons connected to the 16th line 1st line 30th line on the track at the time of the stop. Thus, the situation of the vehicle click and the vehicle click was not enough to be found to be under the condition of the vehicle click.
The five points are examined for the same reason.
According to the original judgment, in this case, after the signal number has sent back to the engineer company, it is clear that the signal number is not negligent in the signal number on the ground that there is no duty of care. Thus, it is clear in the original text that the defendant does not have negligence on the signal number. Thus, the defendant's assertion of criticism in the original judgment is without merit. In addition, in operating an enterprise, the defendant has a duty to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff, even if there is no fault or defect in the structure of the public official belonging to the defendant, even though he did not have any provision on the so-called without negligence, even if the defendant is a monopoly company, it is reasonable to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on the ground that there is no provision on the responsibility of negligence on the part of the public official belonging to him, and that there is no ground for appeal against this.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu