208Da53713 Compensation (as referred to)

1. Kim... (***********************))

**********************)

************************

The plaintiffs' address Ansan-si

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Jong-hwan

1. Korea;

Representative of Law and Lee Jae-Nam

A person who is a litigation performer, has been appointed,

A person shall be appointed.

Representative Market Maximum

Attorney Kim Han-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 200749545 Decided June 19, 2008

March 25, 2010

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. First of all, the lower court affirmed that there was a defect in installation and management in the breakwater in relation to the instant death accident. In other words, in the case of a breakwater that is actually used as a resting space by many residents or tourists, it is necessary to be equipped with adequate facilities to perform the functions of a resting space in addition to the original function of protecting ships, etc. in the port from waves.

Specifically, in this case, considering all circumstances such as the purpose of the breakwater in this case, the situation of the place of installation and the situation of the breakwater in this case, and the fact that there was an accident that tourists fall and die even before the breakwater in this case, the defendants, who install and manage the breakwater in this case, have a duty of care to install a rail for the safety of people entering the breakwater in this case for rest, or to take protective measures against safety accidents by properly keeping the name tubes and lines, etc. However, at the time of the accident in this case, the breakwater in this case was not installed with a safety distress, and there was a defect that does not have an adequate safety safety as facilities being used as resting space as facilities because the breakwater in this case was kept only at approximately 1,00 meters in the breakwater.

However, the court below denied the proximate causal relation between the above defect and the death accident of this case for the following reasons. In other words, even though the strike was done up to 2.5 meters immediately before the accident of this case, it is difficult to see that the deceased would not fall if the safety distress was installed in light of the circumstances of the accident of this case where the deceased died on the wind outside the breakwater of this case, which is about 5 meters in width and about 7 meters in width, and that the deceased died on the wind outside the breakwater of this case, which is about 4 meters in design wave, and that it would be difficult to recognize the above proximate causal relation in light of the fact that the deceased did not fall, and if the danger is anticipated to be cut down by the wave, the visitors themselves must not have access to the breakwater, and that safety facilities are basically safety facilities to prevent the fall by the satisfaction by the satisfaction.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below which denied the proximate causal relationship between the defect in the installation and management of the breakwater in this case and the death accident in this case as recognized by the court below.

If it is necessary, as stated in the court below, to install adequate facilities to function as a resting space, in addition to the original function of protecting vessels, etc. in the port from wave, the breakwater in this case as determined by the court below, and if there was an accident that has been caused by each of the tourists, etc. on October 19, 200 and December 6, 204 before the accident in this case occurred, it cannot be said that the installation of the breakwater is required to be sufficient to prevent the crash by simple satisfaction, and, in principle, it is necessary to function as a facility to prevent the workers from spreading. Moreover, as recognized by the court below, a person who has installed the breakwater in this case from 00 to 200 to 20 to 6 to 6 to 20 to 6 to 6 to 5 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 5 to 2 to 5 to 5 to 2 to 2 to 5 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 3 to 3 to 3 to 5 to 5 to 5 to 2 to 5 to 2 to 2 to 5 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 3 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to 2 to.

Therefore, even if the strike that caused the instant accident was so cut and 7 meters wide, it is difficult to recognize that the deceased fell into the sea even if the safety facilities are installed as above, and rather, the defect in the installation and management of the breakwater in this case, which did not have such safety facilities, provided a considerable reason for the occurrence of the instant death accident. In addition, if there is a risk that it is likely that the plaintiff should not have access to the breakwater in this case, it is sufficient to consider it as the cause of offsetting the deceased’s negligence in calculating the amount of damages for which the plaintiffs can claim, and thereby, it is not denied the proximate causal relation.

Nevertheless, the court below's determination that there is no proximate causal relation between the defect in the installation and management of the breakwater in this case and the death accident in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The purport of the appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Lee Jae-chul

Jeju High Court Justice Yang Chang-soo