Whether Article 9 of the State Compensation Act applies to claims for damages against railroad operation accidents and the State Compensation Act.

The state's railroad operation is not the exercise of the state's public power, but the state's private economy as the subject of the private economy, so if the plaintiffs seek compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code, it is not necessary to go through a decision of the Compensation Council

Article 9 of the State Compensation Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Korea

Daegu District Court of First Instance (74Gahap49 delivered on July 1, 200)

All appeals are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiffs shall be revoked.

The defendant paid to the plaintiff 1,086,296 won, 886, 296 won to the plaintiff 2, and 2,058,888 won to the plaintiff 3, and 1,472,592 won to the plaintiff 4, and 5 with the annual interest rate of 5% from January 24, 1974 to the day of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant through the first and second trials.

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs through the first and second trials.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant litigation performer asserts that the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case was unlawful since it was filed without going through a decision of the Compensation Council under the State Compensation Act. However, since the state's railroad operation is not a state's exercise of public authority, but a state's private economy as a subject of private economy, the provisions of the State Compensation Act cannot be applied to this case for which the plaintiffs seek compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act, so the above defense by

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

On January 24, 1974, at around 15:37, the deceased non-party 1 driven by the deceased non-party 1 while driving a motor-wheel engine at around 15:37, and cutting the crossing with the outer 2-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri, there is no dispute between the parties, and the verification of the evidence No. 2 of the judgment of the court below without dispute, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments is that the non-party 2, who is a public official belonging to the defendant Hasan-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-r.

Therefore, since the accident occurred due to negligence in the course of performing the duties of the above Nonparty, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the victim as the employer. Meanwhile, according to the facts and evidence of the above recognition, the victim's non-party 1, who was the victim, was stopped and crossed without properly examining the right and the right in passing the railroad crossing at the railroad crossing at the point of this accident, and the negligence of the person who was the victim was the accident was the one caused by the cause. Therefore, the compensation amount should be considered in calculating the compensation amount.

B. Furthermore, considering the testimony of Non-Party 3 as the first instance court witness on the records No. 1 and No. 3 without dispute over the amount of property damages, the victim Non-Party 1, as the male of the ordinary health body remaining 26 years and 9 months at the time of the accident (the life of May 11, 194) was paid 30,00 won monthly salary of 30,000 won (the non-party 1's salary income tax was exempted pursuant to the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 3 of January 14, 1874). The average male age No. 37.48 is 30,00 won and 60,000 won for the above 60,000 won and 50,000 won for the above 60,000 won and 606,000 won for the total amount of profits of Non-Party 1's 60,000 won for the above 60,000 won per month.

Then, we examine the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money, and the plaintiffs' husband's non-party 1, the father's non-party 1, lost their husband's accident and caused the mental suffering in light of our rule of experience. Thus, considering all circumstances such as the plaintiffs' age, property level, accident circumstance and negligence relation, it is reasonable to recognize that the consolation money of the plaintiffs 1 is 200,000 won, and the remaining plaintiffs are 10,000 won, respectively.

3. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 the amount of damages and consolation money together with the amount of 533,333, 433, 430, 300, 766, 7666, and 5% interest per annum from January 24, 1974 to the full payment of the damages and consolation money. Accordingly, the defendant's claim for this case is justified within the above recognized limit, and the remaining amount is dismissed without merit. Since the judgment below is just in its conclusion, it is dismissed in its entirety pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95, 92, and 89 of the same Act with respect to the payment of the costs of lawsuit to the plaintiff 3, and by applying Articles 95, 92, and 89 of the same Act.

Judges Kang Jae-il (Presiding Judge)