[손해배상][집15(3)민,122]
The duty of care to confirm the authenticity of the consignee in delivering cargo by the public official of the Korea Railroad;
A public official of the Korean National Railroad has a duty of care to confirm the authenticity of a consignee in delivering cargo.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Equitables
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3097 delivered on June 1, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na3097 delivered on June 1, 1967
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers:
According to the facts established by the original judgment, the plaintiff Kim Il-do's cargo entrusted with the carriage in the name of Kim Il-do arrives in the field of entertainment, the non-party 1, a public official of the Korea Railroad, neglected to perform his duty of care to confirm the authenticity of the consignee, received the guarantee letter from the non-party 3, an employee of the non-party 2 corporation, not the consignee, and delivered the above cargo. The fact of such judgment is consistent with the evidence established by the original judgment, and it cannot be said that the defendant was not negligent in relation to the accident of this case. Thus, whether the reasoning of the judgment was insufficient, or not, and there is no error of law in the judgment, which is the original judgment of the non-party 2 corporation, which did not recognize the negligence of the plaintiff. The arguments
Therefore, according to Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges (Presiding Judge) of the two judges of the Supreme Court and the vice versa.