The case holding that it is reasonable to exempt the State from its responsibility even if there are some gross negligence on the part of the injured passengers, who are going up to the train while the train is proceeding 40 meters after its departure, in light of gross negligence of the injured passengers.

In the middle station where a train stops for a certain time after the departure of the train, the service personnel sending the signal shall not be able to confirm daily boarding of all passengers in front of the train and all passengers in the home including the train and the train, etc., and expect to take safety measures against it after the departure of the train, and it is not possible to expect that the train be taken after the departure of the train from the middle station where the passengers are under the influence of alcohol for about 40 meters after the start of the train and the train is under the influence of alcohol, but trying to get off the train, with the intention of getting off the train and getting off the platform, even though it was about 40 meters, in view of the negligence of the State, even if the negligence on the domestic service personnel is recognized, if the train is found to be responsible for the damage of the train caused by the above accident.

Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

United States Armed Forces

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na35450 decided March 2, 1989

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was unable to get off or get off the train at the time of the above 8th boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 3th boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 14th boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 8th boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 17th boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 8th boarding and leaving the train again at the time of the above 8th boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 1st boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 1st boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 1st boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 8th boarding and leaving the train, and thus, the court below rejected the defendant's exemption from the liability for damages to the plaintiff's employees who were not negligent in the above 1st boarding and leaving the train at the time of the above 1st boarding and leaving the train for the above time of the accident.

As such, the court below accepted the defendant's negligence as to the occurrence of the accident of this case, other than the plaintiff's negligence, without checking whether the above passenger was on board or alight, and recognized the defendant's negligence. This decision is difficult to accept. Even in accordance with the evidence adopted by the court below, it is reasonable to recognize the defendant's negligence as to the plaintiff's negligence on the ground that the above train was on the front side of the train when the above train arrived at the station, and the passengers were on board or alight from the front side of the train, and it is reasonable to recognize the plaintiff's negligence on the ground that the above train was on the ground that the plaintiff's negligence should not be seen from the front side of the train at the time of the 4th boarding of the train, and that the plaintiff's negligence should not be seen as the plaintiff's negligence on the part of the plaintiff's driver's own, such as the plaintiff's negligence on the front side of the train, and that the plaintiff's driver's negligence should not be seen as the plaintiff's negligence on the front side of the train.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that reached the opposite conclusion is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the carrier's liability for negligence, unless the court below did not make an incomplete deliberation as to the contents of the fault at the time of the accident, and it constitutes Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)