[1] Details of the duty of care borne by the participant in an athletic game (i.e., duty of safety consideration) / Standard for determining whether the participant in an athletic game with an inherent risk of injury accompanying physical contact fulfilled his/her duty of safety consideration, and whether he/she is liable for damages for an act during an athletic game not beyond the scope of social reasonableness (negative)

[2] In a case where Party A, who was in charge of alley kis in the early axis games, ice ice sprinks for the purpose of cutting off the pelle in front of the alley and suffered injury in the course of damaging the pelle trees by collision with Party B, the case holding that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, even though it is difficult to readily conclude that Party B’s act was against Party B’s duty of safety care beyond the scope of social reasonableness, and thus, found Party B’s liability for damages, etc.

[1] Since a participant in an athletic game may differ from other players due to his/her own act, he/she has a duty of safety consideration, which is the duty of good faith to ensure the safety of the life and body of other players, in compliance with the sports rules. However, sports games such as sports games in the form where prices for counter players are mainly formed, or sports games such as the stable or deaf-gu, in which physical contact takes place in one area, are inherent in the game itself; and a participant in the athletic game is at least one degree of danger to the extent possible and participating in the athletic game. Whether the participant in the athletic game fulfilled the above duty of care, the type and risk of the athletic game in question, the progress of the game, whether the parties concerned comply with the sports rules, the nature and degree of violation of the rules, and the degree of injury, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the nature and degree of violation of the rules, if the act does not deviate from the scope of social reasonableness.

[2] The case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principle on the ground that, in a case where Gap, who was in charge of alley kis in early alley-gu competition, was in violation of the regulations, in light of the string of the air space, Gap and Eul, the situation immediately before the collision can be viewed as a situation where there is competition to point out the air space coming from the day of attack and the day of attack, and it is difficult to readily conclude that Eul violated the regulations, and even if it was in violation of the regulations, it is difficult to say that the degree of violation is heavy, and thus, it is hard to conclude that Gap violated the regulations, and thus, it is hard to say that the act was in violation of the regulations, in light of the inherent risk of the stable competition accompanying the string physical contact, the physical shape of the contact between the attack kis in the future and the day of attack kis, etc., and thus, it is hard to conclude that Gap violated the social safety obligation to the extent of attack and the day of attack kis, etc.

[1] Articles 2 and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2 and 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2011Da66849, 66856 Decided December 8, 2011 (Gong2012Sang, 116)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Yellow-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Young-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2016Na10627 decided December 23, 2016

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Basic factual basis

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are acknowledged.

A. On July 13, 2014, Plaintiff 1 (the machine plaintiffs are parents and descendants of Plaintiff 1; hereinafter in this context, Plaintiff 1 refers only to Plaintiff 1 for convenience) and the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Steering Team that belongs to the Defendant as its members divided teams into teams in the playgrounds at △△ Elementary School located in the Gyeyang-si, △△△△△△△△-si, △△△△△△, and the Plaintiff was in charge of the Plaintiff’s other team attack.

B. In the event that the player of the team to which the Defendant belongs in the game was engaged in the centering in the direction of the framework of the team to which the Plaintiff belongs, the Plaintiff was faced with the Defendant by taking out ice ice ice ice ice ice out to the left side in order to repair the public in front of the mouth (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff’s head and the Defendant’s ice gate faced with the Defendant. The Plaintiff was judged to have a delayed disability on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the loss of neck trees, etc. due to the instant accident.

2. Judgment of lower court

A. The first instance court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages on the grounds that the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached the duty of care in relation to the instant accident. For the specific reasons, the following was revealed.

The plaintiff, the Gakifer, trying to scisf and lay off the factory, and the defendant, the scisfer, scisfer, went to the factory to enter the factory. However, at the time of the collision, the plaintiff's head head was cut off, and all two persons were unable to enter the factory. These concurrent situation may be scisfy in the stable competition, and physical contacts are likely to occur in the course of the competition, and there seems to be a situation that can normally be anticipated. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant went to the direction of the plaintiff at the time of the accident in this case, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the defendant did not stop while going to the direction of the plaintiff, this is not clear that the defendant would go to the line with the plaintiff while going to normal competition, it can not be seen that the defendant's act of attack may go to the gabr and go to the public. It is difficult to expect any conflict in light of the nature of the defendant's act of attack to the public.

B. The lower court deemed that the Defendant violated the duty of care to consider the safety of the Plaintiff beyond the limit permitted by social norms, and determined that the Plaintiffs were liable for compensating for the damages suffered by the instant accident. The following reasons were based on:

The Defendant has a duty of care to take account of the situation and movement of the pelza when pelzas come to pelzas in order to catch the pelzas above the runways. Nevertheless, the Defendant seems to face the Plaintiff coming from the pelza at the rapid speed with the Plaintiff who pelzas to build the pelzas. Although the Plaintiff had already been placed in the mouths near the runway at the time of the occupation of the Plaintiff, it is difficult to understand in light of the collision level, the degree of shock, the situation after the shock, etc., it is difficult to understand. The Defendant, a dry body (a 178cc, the weight of body size, 100cc or more) was sufficiently anticipated that the degree of shock may not be increased at the time of collision with the other party. However, the Defendant committed an attack against the Plaintiff, not by a member or a member of the sports team who is expected to have been placed in the shape of the sports team in question, but by an attack against the other party’s body within the danger zone.

3. Supreme Court Decision

A. A participant in an athletic game has a duty of safety care under the good faith principle to ensure the safety of the life and body of other athletes, etc. in compliance with the sports rules. However, a form of athletic game, such as decentralization or Taekwondo, where the price for a counter player is mainly formed, or where multiple players are engaged in physical contacts in one area, such as a axis or deaf-gu, is in danger inherent in the game itself accompanying physical contact, and a participant in the athletic game (hereinafter referred to as “competitive participant”) is at least one degree of risk and participating in the athletic game to the extent possible. Whether a participant in the athletic game has fulfilled the above duty of care. The degree of risk and danger of the game in question, the situation at the time, compliance with the sports rules of the parties concerned, the nature and degree of violation of the rules, degree of injury, degree of injury, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and if the act does not go beyond the reasonable scope of sociality, it shall not be deemed that the act goes beyond the scope of liability for damages, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20168Da6161618.

B. Examining the foregoing legal doctrine in light of the factual basis and the record as seen earlier, the following can be seen.

Although the Plaintiff cut off to the left side of the air to cut off the air, it seems that the air was not contacted, and that the air was only the head of the Plaintiff. In light of the tragic state of the air, the progress direction of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the point of collision, etc., the situation immediately before the collision can be seen as a situation where the Plaintiff competes with the Plaintiff in order to point out the air coming from the day of the collision. Even if the collision occurred at a rapid speed between the point of collision and the point of collision, it would be difficult to avoid the conflict even if the Defendant was not aware of the Plaintiff’s movement, or even if the Plaintiff’s movement was not known, it would be unreasonable for the lower court to recognize that the Defendant continued to move at a rapid speed from the Plaintiff to the point of collision with the Non-Party’s testimony, such as the Non-Party’s testimony, rather than the Plaintiff’s testimony, it would be unreasonable to view the conflict between the Plaintiff’s testimony and the Non-Party’s testimony.

In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant violated the regulations of a stable competition in the course of a collision with the Plaintiff, and even if it violates the said regulations, it is difficult to deem that the degree of violation is heavy. In light of the inherent risk of a stable competition involving a string physical contact, the inherent risk of a stable competition involving a string physical contact, and the general form of physical contact that may occur between the attacke and the thringer, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s act was in violation of the duty of safety consideration against the Plaintiff beyond the scope of social reasonableness. The circumstance that the Plaintiff suffered serious injury by the instant accident is difficult to deem that it affected the foregoing judgment

C. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the duty of safe consideration of participants in a stable competition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

The Defendant’s appeal is with merit, and this part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed, and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)