The case holding that the negligence is recognized where the possessor of explosives does not actively prevent the occurrence of explosives by others even though he/she finds them as his/her hand.

It is known that the explosives possessor is a dangerous object that can be explosiond if he/she handles the explosives by mistake, and so long as he/she knows it, he/she shall be deemed to be negligent in the event of an accident caused by not actively preventing the occurrence of the accident, such as discovering the explosives by hand and simply removing dangerous objects, or removing them from the site of hand, and releasing them to a safe place.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 69Na240 delivered on June 17, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s Attorney

The owner of explosives knows that it is a dangerous object to explosion if it is mistakenly handled, and so long as he knows that there is an accident caused by the occurrence of explosives by not actively preventing the occurrence of the accident, it shall be deemed that there is negligence. Therefore, the court below held that the defendant, who was requested to keep the same detonating cap, brought by Nonparty 1 in his own book with the intention of dismissal based on the evidence adopted by him, included the same article in his own book-to-day partnership, but the defendant, who was fluort of the above defendant's provoking net 208:0 on February 4, 1965, 200, did not deal with dangerous articles in his hand-to-be, and that the court below's judgment was just and acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the purport of the judgment of the court below as to the death of the non-party 2, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the above ground for death was caused by the non-party 2, as well as by failing to know that it was caused by negligence.

Then, even if examining the records of the defendant's short-term extinction prescription, the court below's rejection of the short-term extinction prescription claim on the ground that there is no evidence that the legal representative of the off-line number of the deceased was aware that the perpetrator was the defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff, other than February 4, 1966 claimed by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence that the perpetrator was aware of the date of the accident as alleged by the defendant before that accident. There is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the law, and thus, the court below's rejection of the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)