[손해배상][집18(1)민,374]
The relationship between negligence on the loss of a person who has lost a shot and the death of a victim due to the explosion of the shot is not only a loss due to special circumstances.
The fact that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu lost a shot can not be readily concluded to have been predicted that it would have been explosiond by the lost person. As such, the result of the victim's death caused by an explosion of the above shot field is merely a damage caused by special circumstances in relation to the negligence of the lost person's shot field.
Article 393(2) of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Korea
Cheongju District Court Decision 69Na62 delivered on December 10, 1969
The part of the original judgment against the defendant shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant 1 are examined.
According to the judgment of the court below, the court below found the non-party 1's defense against the ground of the accident of this case caused by the explosion of a sort 108, the non-party 2, who was the riot police officer, and the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, lost the hydrogen carrying, and the plaintiff's non-party 2 was not legally related to the fact that the non-party 2 died due to the explosion of the sort 2, based on the evidence adopted by him, the non-party 1, who was the non-party 1, was able to rest in the way of the sandy president as well as the non-party 1, as stated in its judgment, and the non-party 2, who carried a variety shot with strong explosive, had a duty of care to prevent the explosion accident caused by the loss of the sort 1, and thus, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was the non-party 2, had the non-party 2's defense against the non-party 2, as the victim 5's defense.
However, even if a kind of shots has strong explosions, it cannot be readily concluded that the loss of shots would have caused danger to the loss of shots, as pointed out by the novels, as long as they were not automatic explosions in itself. Therefore, the plaintiff's death due to the explosion of the above shots could not be determined that it was nothing more than damage due to special circumstances in relation to the non-party 1's negligence of loss of shots. Thus, it cannot be said that the above non-party 1 predicted the above result at the time of loss of shots or could have predicted it, or that the non-party 1 could have predicted it was not responsible for that result, and that the non-party 1 could not be found to have lost shots for the first time between the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's death and the non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party shots' safety evidence without any deliberation and judgment.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges under Articles 406 and 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho