Cases of cutting a bridge on the degree of negligence

On the rooftop through which high-tension wires pass, however, it is recognized as 4/5 of the fault of the victim who died of his/her reduction at the entrance in the event that there is only a sign "restricted area" on the entrance, but has not been installed with a corrective device, the degree of negligence of the victim who died of his/her reduction at the entrance will be added to a bridge on the degree of negligence in offsetting negligence.

Article 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Electric Power Corporation and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 77Na55 delivered on July 20, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. The court below recognized the fact that Defendant Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd., in order to raise the voltage in the area of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the Busan, and recognized the fact that Nonparty 3 was negligent in the construction of the Defendant Co., Ltd., an employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd., who was responsible for supervision of the Defendant Co., Ltd, and the fact that Nonparty 2, who was the employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd., the employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd., who was responsible for supervision of the Defendant Co., Ltd., in the course of performing the construction, due to Nonparty 2’s negligence in the execution of the construction, and the construction without safety distance between the building, Jeonju and the electric wires, who were the employee of the Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., the former Co., Ltd., as a result of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction, the lower court recognized each of the above recognition of each of the above facts.

그러나 원심이 인용하고 있는 1심에서의 현장 및 서류검증결과에 의하면 위 소외 망인은 선박 동진 제 1 호의 선원으로서 위 선박을 수리하기 위하여 위 삼화조선철공소에 들렸다가 1976.6.15 16:00경 위 철공소 직원들이 점심 후 휴식차 위 철공소 건물 옥상에 올라가 윳놀이를 하고 있으므로 다른 선원들과 함께 옥상에 따라 올라가 놀다가 이건 사고가 발생한 것이고 당시 옥상의 출입문에는 단지 제한구역이라는 표시가 되어있을 뿐 시정장치가 되어 있지 아니하였으며 그 뿐만 아니라 위 철공소의 직원인 소외 4 역시 이건 사고 후에 비로소 옥상에 고압전선이 통과하고 있음을 알게 되었음을 엿볼 수 있는바(기록 124면 참조), 사실관계가 과연 위와 같다면 이건 사고발생에 위 소외 망인의 과실이 경합되었다고 하더라도 그 과실의 정도를 5분지 4로 인정한 것은 공평을 실하였다고 할 것이므로 원심은 과실상계를 함에 있어서 과실의 정도에 관한 교량을 그릇친 위법이 있다 고 아니할 수 없으니 이점을 지적하는 논지는 이유 있다.

2. Even if the record was prepared, the above non-party 1,00,000 won received by the plaintiff et al. after being deposited by the above non-party 1, who is an employee of the defendant Korean Electric Power Company, was deposited as the consolation money for the death of the above non-party 3 and the reimbursement of the damages for this case. Thus, the argument on this point is without merit, since there is no reason

3. The court below held that the medical expenses of the plaintiff 2's claim for the medical treatment expenses for the above non-party deceased will be borne by the deceased non-party 3, who is the victim's father, who was the adult branch, unless there are special circumstances, and the plaintiff 2, who is his father, did not bear the above claim, and the plaintiff 4-2, and the plaintiff rejected the above claim. According to the witness's testimony of the non-party 5, according to the witness's testimony of the non-party 4-3 submitted by the plaintiff, the above non-party 5, the medical expenses for the above non-party deceased for this case can be taken into account the fact that the plaintiff was paid. Thus, this case's medical expenses (in particular, the hospitalization deposit or medical expenses paid before the death of the above non-party 2), regardless of whether the above non-party 2 had any inevitable reason for the plaintiff's failure to pay the above non-party 2, and it should not be borne by the plaintiff, his father, and it should not be rejected by the plaintiff.

(In addition, if we examine the Gu and record in detail, the above plaintiff's claim is mobilized, and it is not possible to accept the above claim without examining the above claim, since it is not possible to request it as an inheritor for the right to claim compensation for the medical expenses of the deceased of this case.

Therefore, under Articles 400 and 406(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)