The meaning of negligence in liability for damages

The negligence in the liability for damages refers to the case where a person is negligent in performing the duty that should be performed on the basis of an ordinary person, or where a person fails to perform the duty that should not be performed, or where it was inevitable to do so, it shall not be deemed that there was an negligence.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1938 Decided July 18, 1967

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea's legal representative of the litigation performer, the promotion of Kim, the dispatch of officers,

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na570 delivered on September 27, 1979

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the non-party 1 did not know the non-party 1's military unit and the non-party 1's non-party 7 military personnel's accident at the time of accident, and that the non-party 2's office was non-party 1's accident, and the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1'.

However, the negligence in the liability for damages means that the person in question neglects his duty, or fails to perform his duty that should not be done on the basis of the ordinary person. If it was force majeure, it shall be reasonable to deem that there is negligence. In this case, according to the descriptions of evidence No. 8-1, evidence No. 2 (Judgment), and evidence No. 6 (Verification Report) in this case, the non-party 3 was released by the non-party 1 by putting the total amount of his house to her house, "the life is the last place." However, it is hard to see that the non-party 1 was killed, her gun, her house, and her house was concealed in the non-party 10's house, and the non-party 7 arrested the non-party 1 for the total period of 8 days by putting his house to her house and her house to the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 was aware that the non-party 1 was aware of the total price of 14 and the non-party 2's house.

If the present situation is as above, even if the non-party 3, 7, and 8, and the non-party 1 is obligated to take physical measures so that he can not use firearms by using any method, it shall not be deemed that the failure of the non-party 1, 7, and 8, etc. to perform the duties as stated in its reasoning was inevitable, considering the above situation at that time, the non-party 1, 7, and 8, as stated in its reasoning, and considering the same situation as at the time of the original judgment, such as the non-party 1, 7, and 10 minutes in excess of the hours, and it shall be deemed that the non-party 1, 8, etc.

However, the court below judged that the plaintiff's injury of this case was due to the negligence during the performance of official duties, such as the non-party 3, 7, and 8, etc., it is difficult to avoid criticism that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on negligence in the liability for compensation for pen damages.

It is reasonable to discuss this point.

Therefore, this appeal is with merit, and therefore remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)