beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The appeal cost arises between the plaintiffs and the defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the “field inspection result” of Section 3, 14 of the part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to be the “field inspection result of the court of first instance”. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiffs asserted that since the accident of this case occurred due to the defects of the defendant's fault or railroad facilities as follows, the defendant is responsible for compensating for damages caused by the accident.
1) At night, the Defendant was negligent in not installing lighting facilities on the rail so that the engine operators operating trains can identify the right of the front line, but they failed to install them. 2) If the vehicle crossing enters the e-mail crossing to the south along the steel path and walk to the south along the steel path reach the accident site in this case, the e-mail crossing manager working for the e-road crossing did not properly control the entry into the railroad line of the general public, and thus, the Defendant was negligent in the management of the railroad crossing.
3) If E enters the place near the ordinary house in the entrance of the Gu, the Defendant is negligent in not installing a fence, etc., even though the general public has to install safety facilities, such as fences, around the street so that it may not enter the railroad without permission. (B) In the event of liability for damages, it is difficult to view that there is a duty to install lighting facilities on all tracks where the general public is allowed to enter the railroad area where the passage of the railroad is prohibited, and it is difficult to view that there is a duty to install lighting facilities on the tracks where the train is proceeding. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise is without merit.
2. The error in railroad crossing management, E is the same as the Samsung Bio-building in Busan-dong, Busan-dong.