[1] Details of the duty of care owed by subway business operators to install and operate wheelchairs liftss

[2] The duty of guidance and supervision to be borne by a local government for the installation and operation of convenience facilities for the disabled

[3] The case holding that in a case where a disabled person who used the wheelchairs installed in the subway station with the help of a public duty personnel and fell and was injured, the liability for damages due to the tort committed by a subway operator is recognized (Provided, That this shall not apply to 50% of negligence set-off), and that local government's liability for damages due to tort

[1] In a place where there is no electric wheelchairs for electric wheelchairs in the subway station, or where there is no electric wheelchairs for electric wheelchairs, a subway operator has a duty of care to prevent fall by having an employee who assists in the use of a manual wheelchairs for electric wheelchairs, convert the wheelchairs into manual manual, leave the manual manual safely on the manual platform by hand, and sign the safety belt.

[2] A local government has the authority to guide and supervise convenience facilities for the disabled so that convenience facilities for the disabled can be installed and operated in compliance with the Act on Guarantee of Promotion of Convenience of Persons with Disabilities, the Aged, Pregnant Women, etc., and to take corrective measures. The Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that public use facilities should be installed with traffic stairs, elevators for the disabled, wheelchairs for the disabled, wheelchairs, slopes, slopes, or platforms, and there is no separate provision on the size, specifications, specifications, and operating methods of wheelchairs. Therefore, local governments are sufficient to guide and supervise the subway business operators to determine whether they install and operate elevators, wheelchairs, etc. for the convenience of the disabled and the convenience of the use of facilities, and further, they do not have the duty to guide and supervise the wheelchairs chairs so that they have protection devices suitable for the users of the wheelchairs, and whether they have assistant personnel to take special protective measures against the wheelchairs users.

[3] The case holding that in a case where a disabled person who used the wheelchairs installed in the subway station with the help of a public duty personnel and fell and was injured, the liability for damages due to the tort committed by a subway operator is recognized (Provided, That this shall not apply to 50% of negligence set-off), and that local government's liability for damages due to a tort

[1] Articles 750 and 758 of the Civil Act, Articles 9 and 16 of the Act on Guarantee of Promotion of Convenience of Persons with Disabilities, the Aged, Pregnant Women, Etc. / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act, Articles 8, 10, and 23 of the Act on Guarantee of Promotion of Convenience of Persons with Disabilities, the Aged, Pregnant Women, etc., and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Guarantee of Promotion of Convenience of Persons with Disabilities, the Aged, Pregnant Women, etc. / [3] Articles 750 and 7

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Law Firm Dom Law Office, Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City et al. (Attorney Seo-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 2, 2006

1. Defendant Matro shall pay 12,66,511 won to Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3 respectively, 5% per annum from September 24, 2004 to November 16, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the remaining claims against the defendant Meart are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is borne by the plaintiffs, and 2/3 of the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the defendant Matro.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiffs 1 64,374,089 won, Plaintiff 2, and 3 each of them, 10,000,000 won, and 5% per annum from September 24, 2004 to October 19, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff 1 is the first-class physically disabled person who must use wheelchairs when moving due to the transformation and math of a wall by cerebral cerebral malas.

B. On September 24, 2004, the above plaintiff participated in a slick meeting held to secure the right to move of disabled persons in front of the subway line 1 Seoul Station, which was held on September 24, 2004, and had the wheelchairs so as to get out of the moving stairs during the four line platform of the same station using the electric wheelchairs (hereinafter “instant wheelchairs”).

C. The instant wheelchairs are 65 cm in width, 113 cm in length, 54 cm in length between electric and rear wheels, and 72 km in weight. The instant wheelchairs are placed in a huge type control device that manipulates the front and rear left of the wheelchairs around the passenger’s face (hereinafter referred to as “contestator”) and a wheelchairs control device that regulates the propeller’s promotion power. The said Plaintiff carried the wheelchairs with a pent, divided the two wheelchairs into water, adjusted the propeller’s promotion power, and operated the wheeler’s shield by manipulating the consortium. Meanwhile, the said Plaintiff used the wheelchairs since 202, and used the instant wheelchairs for three months prior to the occurrence of the accident.

D. The instant lifts is 76 cm in width, 105 cm in length, 225 km in weight, and wheel chairs are designed to take the place above the platform and make it possible for them to depart from the place when the safety protection cost, which is the metal pipe, is lowered, and there is no safety device to prevent accidents in the case of a crash accident on the wheelchairs.

E. In order to board the instant lifts, the said Plaintiff conducted an examination of the instant lifts so that the Defendant’s employees and the Nonparty (from August 2004 to the subway station) who were in the nearest position were on board the Defendant’s wheel, and were on board the instant lifts so that the said Plaintiff could embark on the wheelchairs of the said Plaintiff.

F. During the above Plaintiff’s operation of a control tower slick, the Nonparty was taking the back of the instant wheelchairs. However, there was an accident where the instant wheelchairs passed through a platform and fall under the following (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and the said Plaintiff suffered injury, such as double alleys, the right-hand side, and the mouths.

G. On the side wall of the point on board the instant lifts, the letter "on the part of the point on board the instant lifts, which requires assistance from employees by using wheelphones. This wheel lifts has been attached with a notice "on the part of a guardian or a service personnel when a general wheel dedicated facility is used by wheel scooterss, etc."

H. Prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, there was an accident that occurred in the course of the use of electric wheelchairs chairs in the electric wheelchairs in the long-term terminal station on June 28, 199, the Hychion station on October 6, 200, the Maro 3-ro station on October 6, 200, the Marasan Station on February 8, 201, the Yeongdeungpo-gu Station on July 18, 201, and the high-speed terminal station on September 16, 2001.

I. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the parents of Plaintiff 1.

[Based on Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 9, 14 evidence, Eul 3, 5 through 8, and 20 evidence (including each number), each image of Eul 4, and 21 evidence (including each number), the result of the verification by the commissioned judge, the non-party witness and the non-party witness, testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the defendant's claim against the Seoul metro

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

(1) Grounds attributable to Defendant Matro

As seen earlier, in light of the fact that an accident of the same type of wheelchairs occurred before the occurrence of the instant accident and that electric scooterss, etc. were attached to the point on board the wheelchairs of the same type to the extent that they would necessarily cause the cooperation of guardians or service personnel, Defendant Seoul Metro, which is likely to pose risks to the use of electric wheel chairs, and the size of electric wheel chairs of the same type to the extent that they could not interfere with the fall by human force, and the weight and promotion capacity of the manual manual of this case could not be seen to have been known to the non-party’s operation of the manual of this case, and that there was no safety device to prevent the fall on board the manual of the manual of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view the non-party’s operation of the manual of this case with the duty of care to safely install the manual of this case and to safely install the manual of this case’s operation of the manual of this case without any safety device to prevent the collision of the manual of this case.

(2) Limitation of liability

On the other hand, the above plaintiff's error is the cause of the accident of this case since it is reasonable to view the above plaintiff's fault ratio to 50%, and the defendant's responsibility is limited to 50%, since it is reasonable to view that the above plaintiff's negligence ratio exceeds 50%, since it is reasonable to view that the above plaintiff's negligence ratio exceeds 50%, since the defendant's liability is limited to the remaining 50%.

B. Scope of liability for damages

(1) The above plaintiff's property damage

(A) Positive damages

2,806,410 won = 2,256,410 won + 550,000 won (= 50,000 won x 11 days, and nursing expenses during the duration of hospitalization)

(b) Actual income.

(1) Facts recognized and evaluation details

(i) Basic matters: male who was born on June 13, 1975 and the age at the time of the instant accident remains 29 years of age and 3 months of age;

(ii) Monetary assessment of operating capacity: To calculate operating capacity based on the amount calculated by multiplying 52,585 won, which is the unit market wage of the ordinary worker at the time of the instant accident, as indicated in the “Report on the Actual Conditions of Construction Business Wage” issued by the Korea Construction Association, by the rate of additional labor capacity loss due to the instant accident and 22 days per monthly average working days.

(iii) Operating Period: 367 months from October 15, 2004, the day following the discharge of the said Plaintiff’s above Plaintiff’s claim, until June 13, 2035, the maximum working age of which is 60 years.

(iv) Additional loss rate of labor ability due to the instant accident: 8%

② Calculation: Based on the above facts and the content of the evaluation, when calculating the current price at the time of the instant accident in accordance with the Hofmanial Calculation Act that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month from damage from the lost income of the said Plaintiff caused by the instant accident, a total of 20,526,612 won [52,585 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 0.08 x 0.7904 (=22.7862 - 0.958), 221.7904] shall be deemed to be the same (hereinafter the same shall apply).

[Based on the recognition] The statement of Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including each number), and the result of the court's commission of physical examination of the director of the National University Yongsan Hospital

(C) the guidance; and

11,66,511 won (2,806,410 won + 20,526,612 won) ¡¿ 0.5 (Defendant Seoul Matt's Liability Ratio)

(2) The plaintiffs' consolation money

Considering the circumstances and consequences of the instant accident and all the circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, it is reasonable to determine the amount of KRW 1,000,000 each of the Plaintiffs.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City

The plaintiffs asserted that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor is jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident in this case as the supervisor of the defendant Matro.

However, even if the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City has the authority to supervise the defendant's Seoul Metropolitan City, such fact alone cannot be said that the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City should be liable for damages in relation to the accident of this case.

In addition, the plaintiffs' assertion that the accident of this case occurred as a joint tort due to negligence in the establishment and operation of the defendant's main office and negligence in the guidance and supervision of the defendant's Seoul Special Metropolitan City, even though the accident of this case occurred, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit as follows.

Articles 10(2) and 23(1) of the Act on Promotion and Guarantee of Convenience of Persons with Disabilities, the Aged, Pregnant Women, Etc. (hereinafter “Act”) provide that “The head of a central administrative agency in charge of facilities (the head of a central administrative agency, a Metropolitan City Mayor, a Do Governor, and the head of a Si/Gun/Gu who provides guidance and supervision on the installation and operation of convenience facilities (facilities and equipment to promote mobility and convenience in living for persons with disabilities, etc. and facilitate access to information) shall provide guidance and supervision necessary for the installation and operation of convenience facilities for the relevant facilities under his/her jurisdiction, and may order the relevant facility owner to take necessary measures, such as the installation and improvement of convenience facilities, to ensure that convenience facilities for persons with disabilities are installed and operated in compliance with the Act, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if the facilities violate the provisions of the Act.” Thus, it is recognized that the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government has the authority to guide and supervise the installation

However, Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree, Article 3, Article 4 (Attachment 1, and 2) of the Act provides that the installation standards for convenience facilities for the disabled shall be established with respect to the facilities for the disabled, and the facilities for public use shall be installed with the stairs, elevators for the disabled, escalators for the disabled, wheelchairs for the disabled, slopes, slopes, or platforms available to the disabled, and there is no separate provision for the size, specifications, specifications, and operating methods of the wheelchairs. Thus, the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government is sufficient to guide and supervise whether the wheelchairs used the elevators or wheelchairs for the movement of the disabled and the convenience of the use of facilities for the disabled, and further, it shall not be obliged to instruct and supervise the assistant personnel to take special protective measures against the wheelchairs users.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant Matro is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 12,66,511 won (=11,66,511 won +1,000 won + 1,00,000 won) to the plaintiff 2 and 3 respectively, and to claim against the plaintiff 1,00,000 won each of them from September 24, 2004, the date of the accident of this case until November 16, 2006, which is the date of the decision of this case, to claim against the defendant Matro as to the scope of its performance obligation, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Matro is accepted within the above scope of recognition, for each reason, and the remaining claim against the defendant Matro is dismissed as there is no reason.

Judges Landscaping (Presiding Judge)