[손해배상][집20(1)민,200]
As far as a railroad crossing crossing r has been cut off, it can be seen as having fulfilled its duty of care as long as it has been done, and it is an exceptional situation in which it is impossible for the railroad crossingr to have yet to go up to the railroad crossing prior to the error of the blocking.
As long as a railroad crossing crossing r has been cut off, it can be deemed that the driver fulfilled his duty of care, and it is an unforeseeable situation that the passageer goes up to the railroad crossing before the blocking is coming off.
Article 750 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Korea
Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na1393 delivered on August 20, 1971
Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant is reversed;
The case on this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party 1, the number of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the first crossing in the Young River Station, etc., recognized the non-party 1, at the point of the original decision at around 10:40 on April 24, 1969, that the non-party 1, at the point of the main text of the judgment, the road crossing (A) marked on the surface of Busan at the point of Busan, to the surface of Seoul, the non-party 2, who passed the road crossing from the Seoul, to the Busan, and the non-party 2, who was responsible for the non-party 1, the non-party 2, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 2, who was the non-party 1, who was the non-party 2, who was under the duty of care to prevent the collision from entering the railroad due to the non-party 1's fault due to the non-party 2's fault.
However, as long as the blocking machine for the passage of general traffic on the railroad crossing has been lowered, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the crossing crossing operator fulfilled his duty of care, and if the traffic manager has yet to go beyond the crossing in mind before the blocking machine passes, it shall be an exceptional situation that cannot be viewed as a liverer, and unless there are other special circumstances, it shall not be held liable to the liverer for failing to perform his duty of care. In this case, in the judgment of the Seoul High Court as stated in the judgment of the court below, the victim 5, 2, etc., and 6, who passed the crossing early after the blocking machine enters the railroad, was discovered and sounded, but the train noise, etc. did not listen to it, and if the traffic manager went to the road crossing at the speed of 40 km, it shall not be deemed that there was any negligence in the part of the judgment of the case, which did not err in the misapprehension of the duty of care between the defendant and the defendant 1, who did not have any error in the part of the judgment.
The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho