According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the allegation that, based on macroficial evidence, the plaintiff, on January 5, 1991, 22:10, the plaintiff purchased the boarding passes of the 158 arche No. 158 of the Simphere Park 158 of the Simphere Seoul, and was injured as stated in its reasoning, the plaintiff fell at a point where the above train was stopped at approximately 60 meters from the stopping location and suffered injury as of January 6 of the same month, and then the plaintiff met the above train at a point where 60 meters from the stopping location and suffered injury as stated in its reasoning. The defendant's exemption from liability against the defendant for damages as a passenger under Article 148 (1) of the Commercial Act, that is, the defendant or his employees fulfilled the duty of care for passenger transportation, and the above accident was caused by his negligence that the plaintiff suffered from the train that was last later since the departure from the Young-si Station.

In other words, according to macroscopic evidence, the crew of the above train conducted guidance broadcasts, such as prohibition of boarding and leaving a train during each stop station after the departure of the above train area, prohibition of boarding and leaving a train, prohibition of boarding and leaving a train, etc., and conducted music broadcasts to inform the locations of arrival and leaving a train at least five minutes before the arrival of the field. The above train conducted music broadcasts to ensure that the passengers have broken down, and stopped two minutes after arrival of the offlight station at around 05:0 on January 6, 191, the above train was stopped by Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 without knowing that it had arrived at the entrance of the above train by using the entrance for a long time before the departure of the train (the plaintiff), and confirmed that it was no longer known that the entrance of the above train had arrived at the entrance of the above non-party 3, which is an automatic stop.

However, in this case where the victim was found to have been out of his own train and the entrance was opened (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da20623, Nov. 8, 191). According to the records, the above train was 11 or more vehicles at the time and the number of passengers getting out of the train while stopping two minutes in the Yeongdeungpo Station. Thus, in such a situation, in addition to taking measures such as providing guidance broadcasting and guidance for guiding passengers to prevent accidents, it cannot be expected that all passengers of the passenger vehicle who were responsible for passenger transportation at the time to close one door prior to the departure of the train in addition to taking measures such as providing guidance and guidance as above to prevent accidents, it is difficult to expect that all passengers of the passenger vehicle be freely opened or opened at the time of departure of the train, and on the other hand, it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the passengers after checking that there is no further passage of service hours after the departure of the train.

In the end, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of exemption on the ground that the defendant's negligence was concurrent with the accident of this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the content of the fault of the party involved in the accident or the carrier's fault liability, which affected

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