[손해배상(기)][공1993.11.15.(956),2929]
The case holding that a person who lends a charged air gun to a minor who is not permitted to possess a gun shall be held liable to compensate for an error in the accident.
If the owner of an air gun, as a minor, has lent the air gun without taking any safety education with charging any ball gun to a person who is not permitted to possess the gun, and has neglected to have the above minor and his or her dynamics with the air gun any other person, it shall be deemed to have caused the misunderstanding of the air gun, and therefore, he or she shall be liable to compensate for the damage caused thereby.
Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 1, 12, 17(3), 21(4), and 22 of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act
No. 5 plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee
Attorney Shin Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Daegu High Court Decision 92Na9174 delivered on May 6, 1993
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, at around 10:00 on January 2, 1992, Defendant 1, who was a minor, lent the air gun (the gun : 70241; 70241; 70241; 70666.) owned by him, to the court below, only one ball gun was charged. Defendant 1 had the above air gun, which was going to a mountain together with his her friend, and did not remove the ball gun, and left the said air gun after getting out of a house and without removing it.
However, the court below acknowledged that, while Defendant 2 was playing tobacco on the 14:30th day of the same day from the above tobacco drying machine, there were only one ball gun that was charged to the above air gun without checking whether it was loaded with the ball gun, and caused injuries such as brain fladation and fladation, etc. to the front of the above air gun, and that he was transported to the hospital immediately, but it caused death by brain fladation, etc. at the Madong Hospital around 05:20 on the following day, the above air gun was capable of killinging people, livestock, or flads, etc., and without obtaining permission through special procedures and education, he cannot possess it, and even if he was permitted to possess it, he shall not be held with permission to possess it, and he shall not be held with permission to possess it, nor shall he be held with permission to possess it, nor shall he be held with permission to possess it by the above air gun under Article 17 of the Act (see Article 21 of the Act).
In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to causation such as theory of lawsuit. We are without merit.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)