[손해배상][집2(3)민,028]
Fact-finding with respect to the substantial negligence
Notwithstanding the warning of interested parties, it is reasonable to determine that the factory operator has a serious negligence on the actualization in light of the experiment, in the case where the Do regular factory operator puts the gasoline that flows out of the gear by leaving the gasoline that flows out of the gear after leaving the gasoline "welth" at the point where two or more kinds of petroleum are loaded in the factory, and the fire that flows out from the gear "Ilth" is loaded out of the gasoline "Ilth" and the gasoline that flows out from the gasoline in the "Ilth" and the gasoline in the "Ilth" and burning it into the factory, and in the case of burning it into the factory, it is reasonable to determine that the factory operator has a serious negligence on the actualization.
Article 40 of the Act on the Liability of Realization
Gabling net
Defendant (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Daegu District Court of the first instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, Daegu High Court of the second instance, 54 civilian 161 delivered on October 29, 1954
We reverse the original judgment.
The case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The ground of appeal No. 1 of the plaintiff is that the court below neglected the exercise of the right to ask the name of the plaintiff, because the plaintiff neglected the exercise of the right to ask the name of the plaintiff, even if this case was caused by the defendant's gross negligence, it may be caused by a tort in the claim for damages, and may be caused by the default of the obligation to preserve the plaintiff, and the two may be caused by a series of order. The court below neglected the plaintiff's exercise of the right to ask the name of the plaintiff as to this point, which caused the plaintiff's failure to observe this, and caused the plaintiff's failure to capture the fact of the fact of the accident caused by the plaintiff's cause of the tort.
The above ground of appeal No. 2 is that the court below acknowledged that the fire caused the defendant's negligence, but it is difficult to recognize that the vehicle's gross negligence caused the defendant's negligence. However, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal opinion about the negligence, because the defendant's act of failing to control the fire as the factory's manager, upon the defendant's testimony of boom-up, is expanded between the defendant's appearance and the defendant's appearance, and it can be confirmed that the defendant's appearance can lead to the fact that the fire is caused, and at the same time, it is possible to confirm that the defendant's appearance does not regulate the "Bul" at the time of appearance. Thus, it is difficult to see that the defendant's appearance without the control of the fire as the defendant's factory manager might be caused by the expansion of the number of the fire caused by the defendant's negligence.
The above ground of appeal No. 3 contains an error of incomplete determination of material facts. The court below found that the plaintiff, part of the fact of the plaintiff's ground of appeal, was found to have been dismissed from February 1954 by the defendant's early February 1, 1954, which was a part of the plaintiff's ground of appeal, that the plaintiff will take over and operate the Do government factory, which was operated by the defendant, and also delayed the defendant's demand for return of the Do government factory, so the plaintiff inevitably demanded the return of the Do government goods to the other factory, but the defendant was correct, but the defendant was allowed to correct the Do government's Do government's 7 Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government's Do government.
As to the plaintiff's ground of appeal, according to the records, the court below's second oral argument that the plaintiff made it clear that the defendant's tort should be the ground of appeal, and since the plaintiff specified the ground of appeal, there is no need to again exercise the right to request for explanation as to the cause of appeal, and there is no need to make a judgment as to the theory of lawsuit as to the defendant's non-performance of the duty to request for explanation as to the ground of appeal at the same time. Therefore, according to the witness's testimony as to material negligence, the court below's reasoning that the defendant's ground of appeal is without merit since it was examined about the defendant's ground of appeal as to the non-performance of the right to request for explanation as to the defendant's ground of appeal at the second oral argument of the court below, the court below's rejection of the defendant's ground of appeal as to the defendant's ground of appeal on the ground that the defendant's non-performance of the witness's ground of appeal on the ground of appeal Nos. 1954 and the defendant's negligence's ground of appeal is without merit.
Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the original court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allotment of Kim Dong-dong