Cases where the original judgment that rejected the defense of comparative negligence is deemed to be justifiable;

In the case where the original judgment that rejected the defense of comparative negligence is deemed to be justifiable.

Article 1 of the former State Compensation Act, Article 2 of the former State Compensation Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na239 delivered on September 21, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

However, according to the court below's judgment, since M and chys guns training was conducted based on evidence and it is not well-established, the court below should conduct a general adjustment training to prevent the scambling of guns by cutting the arms so as not to scambling, and by cutting the left hand with elel attached to the gun, and such training resulted in flachising, and thus, the scambling as a school officer must prevent an accident caused by the scambling, such as normally training for 10 minutes and taking a rest for 5 minutes after the training for 10 minutes, even though the scambling, the scambalian, and 2, the scambalian, 30 minutes and continuously conducted the training with the plaintiff 1, so it did not necessarily mean that the plaintiff 1 did not have any legitimate reason to conclude that the scambling had any negligence since the plaintiff 1 was on the part of the plaintiff 1, who did not have any negligence.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu