In Article 17 subparagraph 3 of the Railroad Act, the provision of the "physical exposure" was for the purpose of regulating the acts in the train of the railroad passengers, and it cannot be said that there was a provision to avoid liability due to the illegal acts committed by the railroad transportation business entity on the part of the passengers violating the prohibition.

It cannot be said that the provision of the "ex-post exposure to the body" in subparagraph 3 of this Article only for the purpose of controlling the conduct in the train of the railroad passengers, and it does not mean that there was a provision to avoid liability due to the illegal act in the transport of the railroad transportation business entity to the passengers who violated the prohibition.

Article 17 of the Railroad Act, Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na938 delivered on July 13, 1972, Seoul High Court Decision 72Na938 delivered on July 13, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant Kim Jong-won are examined.

1. According to the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's accident was one of the following acts: the plaintiff's accident was owned by the defendant at the time and place in its ruling; the plaintiff's act of falling under "explosion of body" as stipulated in the judgment of the court below; although the plaintiff's act of falling under the "explosion of body" as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the plaintiff's act of falling under the "explosion of body" as stipulated in subparagraph 2 of Article 17 of the Railroad Act, which was composed of the 333 trains and the 325 trains and the 536 trains, which were composed of one of the 335 trains and the 325 trains, which were in operation of the train; and the passage connecting the above 33 trains and the 325 trains, which was now going to the Ulsan Station, and the judgment of the court below that the above provision of the Railroad Act did not violate the legal principles as to the safety passage of passengers to prevent the above act of traffic of the train as stated in its reasoning.

2. In addition, in calculating the profit from loss on the part of the above victim on the record, there is no evidence to find that there was a violation of the rules of evidence or a mistake in finding facts contrary to the rules of experience in the measures to recognize that the above judgment of the court of first instance, by testimony, etc. by the witness at the court of first instance and the witness at the court of first instance, had been engaged in large gathering under the name of the house called Maok-ok at the time of the accident at the time of the accident in this case, and obtained net income 40,000 won after deducting taxes, public charges and various expenses every day, and there is no evidence to find that there was a mistake

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu