The case recognizing the negligence of the Seoul Metropolitan Government subway Corporation in the case where a passenger, who has done so, fells on the subway line floor and was in an accident.

The case holding that, in case where a passenger who performed alcoholic beverages fells in the subway stop floor and was in an accident, there was a negligence on the part of failing to place a guide to fully protect passengers' satisfaction, etc. to the subway Corporation.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Seo-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City subway Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na9533 delivered on June 3, 1993

All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on macroficial evidence, and judged that the accident of this case occurred between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 3, through the connecting space between the three and four guest trains and new train, and it can be confirmed that the accident of this case occurred from the wind of this case, between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, under the influence of alcohol, due to the rest of the objective shift station in which he was diving, and he was under the influence of alcohol. The judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the grounds of appeal as to the occurrence of an accident.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Defendant Corporation: (a) allowed the vice-head of a train to verify and monitor passengers’ boarding and landing conditions and to guide passengers through broadcasting, etc. in order to protect the safety of passengers in the operation of subway; (b) placed guide units to monitor the occurrence of accidents, such as satisfaction; and (c) placed the so-called island stops that are located on the platform and can immediately deviate from the upstream; (d) the length of the platform is 200 to 210 meters; and (e) placed two or more passengers on the platform at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident; and (e) found that the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, despite the high risk of the accident at the time of the accident at which occurred.

In addition, the precedents pointed out by the theory of lawsuit are different in terms of the contents of the case, and thus, it cannot be deemed appropriate to invoke the case. There is no reason for this argument.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)