The case denying any defect in the installation and maintenance of a national railroad crossing or any fault of a train engine operator in an accident that conflicts with a train in operation.

In an accident where a vehicle seeking to pass a railroad crossing conflicts with a train in operation, the case holding that if the State deemed the vehicle to correspond to a third-class crossing under the Standards for Installation and Equipment for Railroad Crossing, which is the direction of the Korean National Railroad, and operated a third-class crossing normally, the failure to install a stoper or install a guide for the first-class crossing cannot be deemed to constitute a defect in the installation and preservation of the road crossing, or there is a proximate causal relation between the accident, and if the vehicle involved in the accident tried to pass a railroad crossing as it is without disregarding the safety facility instruction or the duty of suspension under the Road Traffic Act, it cannot be said that the engineer's negligence is recognized as long as the vehicle involved discovered the accident vehicle and the driver took an emergency operation measure, since it was equipped with the equipment such as the sign sign and the alarm, etc. to be installed at the third-class crossing.

Articles 2 and 5 of the State Compensation Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act (Article 393)

Attorney Park Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na1984 delivered on May 27, 1994

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's failure to stop the railroad crossing of this case and died with his parents because the non-party 1, who is the driver of the accident, failed to stop the railroad crossing of this case, and the plaintiff's driver died with the plaintiff's parents. The above crossing is a third-class railroad crossing pursuant to the "Rules on the Installation and Equipment Standards for Railroad Crossing", which is an instruction of the Korean Railroad Authority, and installed three-class crossing such as warning, warning, flickering, etc. at the time of passing through the train, and operated normally at the time of the accident because all of the facilities to be installed in the three-class crossing such as warning, warning, and warning, etc. at the time of passing the train, and the non-party 1, the engineer of the above train, was equipped with the duty to stop the road crossing of this case at a speed of 78 km per hour, and did not install the road crossing at a speed of 100 km per hour, and found the accident without any instruction to stop the vehicle of this case.

If the circumstances of the accident of this case were as determined by the court below, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's failure to install a stoper or guide required for a Class 1 road crossing, and there is a proximate causal relation between the accident of this case and the accident of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just, and in light of the records, there is no error of incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the above point as pointed out by the theory of lawsuit.

The decisions of the party members pointed out by the theory of lawsuit are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)