The case holding that the following accidents occurred due to negligence in the course of performing duties of the officer in charge of the management of the military bathing beach and water safety personnel who opened the bathing beach at the diverse meeting;

The case holding that the following accidents occurred due to negligence in the course of performing duties of the officer in charge of the management of the military bathing beach and water safety personnel who opened the bathing beach in the military where the divers had a divers' play.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others, Attorneys Shin Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Attorney Shin Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na1133 delivered on July 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the above 4th of July 10, 190 by macroficial evidence that the defendant Gun opened a water beach at the bottom of the Gun, collected entrance fees from visitors, and maintained it. On July 11, 1990 following the opening of the 15th of the University and the above bathing beach were opened at the 15th of the 190th of the 13th of the same month, and entered the bathing beach with the 7th of the 7th of the 7th of the 7th of the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 5th of the 2nd of the 5th of the 5th of the 2nd of the 4th of the 5th of the 4th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 5th of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 1st of the 3th of the th of the disaster.

According to the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to bathing beach installation management such as theory of lawsuit.

On the second ground for appeal

The court below determined that the above deceased's negligence was 70% in light of the facts of this case, when the accident occurred and the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case. Accordingly, the above deceased non-party 1 did not have a part, etc., which is a assistive device for swimming. Thus, even if the deceased's non-party 1 did not enter the sea, the high wave was done well while playing water at a place adjacent to the coast, even if he did not enter the sea. Thus, even if he did not have a part of the body, it is reasonable to view that the above deceased's negligence was 70% in light of the facts of this case. In light of the records, it is acceptable and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to offsetting negligence. This is without merit.

The appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.