Duty of care in handling high-tension oxygens

A person engaged in the business of storing, transporting, and managing compressed pressure oxygens, etc. shall be allowed to handle them only to technicians or skilled craftsmen with professional knowledge, and a person engaged in the business of storing, transporting, and managing compressed pressure oxygens, etc. shall be allowed to handle them, and a person engaged in oxygens has a duty of care to pay careful attention, such as informing the person in charge of handling the handling of the handling methods and checking safety level, because the person in charge of the business has a risk of explosion when he or she is shocked.

Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Defendant corporation

Seoul Central District Court (67Da7829) in the first instance trial

1. From among the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the part which exceeds the amount of KRW 1,075,106 to the plaintiff 1, and KRW 562,553 to the plaintiff 2, and the amount of KRW 562,553 to the above full payment system shall be revoked.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocations are dismissed.

3. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 is dismissed.

4. The costs of the first and second trials arising between the plaintiff 1 and 2 are three-minutes, and one-minutes are the costs of the appeal against the plaintiff 1 and 2 and the costs of the appeal against the plaintiff 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are the costs of the appeal against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 889,873 won, gold 50,000 won to the plaintiff 3, gold 50,000 won to the plaintiff 4, gold 70,653 won, gold 40,326 won to the plaintiff 6, gold 886,981 won to the plaintiff 7 and the amount of 5 percent per annum from January 11, 1967 to the above full payment system.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

The defendant shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The court costs were assessed against all the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

1. Whether the defendant company is liable

As a result of the examination by the court below in 1 to 3 of evidence Nos. 3, which is not disputed in the formation, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's statement and the whole purport of the party's pleading are gathered, the non-party 4 was employed by the non-party 5 with electricity-related pacting hole. The non-party 5 was employed by the non-party 5 with electricity-related pacting hole. At around 10:00 on Jan. 10, 1967, the non-party 5, who was engaged in the work of connecting the pipe of the defendant company to the non-party 6, who was in charge of the site construction of raw material pactinization in the three-party manufacturing industry company, the non-party 7, the same employment ground of the defendant company, among the non-party 6, who was engaged in the work of connecting the pipe at the factory site of the defendant company, and the non-party 4, who was employed by the non-party 5, with a new fluoric acid.

First of all, the issue of whether the defendant company is liable for damages to the above explosion is examined. The defendant company is a company that received the supply of machinery and equipment facilities and equipment, various contact duties, etc., and in particular, in storing, transporting, managing and handling compressed voltages, etc. which have professional knowledge, it is necessary to treat them only to the technician or skilled craftsmen with industrial ability, and in addition, since it is likely that it might be explosion if it is shocked, it is likely that it will be explosioned. Thus, regardless of the occupational duty of care to always prohibit the act of transfer to the ground, the manager at the contact site of the defendant company is obliged to inform the handler of the handling methods and check safety. However, the non-party 6, who is the supervisor at the contact site of the defendant company, has neglected to do so, caused the non-party 7's duty of care to compensate the non-party 7 as an assistant to the non-party 5's industrial accident. Thus, the non-party 6's employer's duty of care to compensate the non-party 7.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident at issue occurred due to the deterioration of the sickness, so it is not responsible to the defendant who is not responsible to the producer of the mountain materials and the container manufacturer. However, as recognized above, the defendant's argument on this point is without merit since the defendant's negligence is recognized as the custodian and handler of the mountain village, and in the case of the accident at issue, the defendant's assertion that the accident at issue should be taken into consideration because he was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to the non-party 3, 4, and 5. However, the defendant's argument is not acceptable.

2. Property damage caused by Nonparty 3’s monmoned

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1, 제2호증, 제3호증의 1, 제4호증의 1,4의 각 기재에 원심증인 소외 1의 증언을 모아보면 소외 3은 1946.8.4.생으로서 이 사건 사고당시 20년 5개월의 건강한 남자로서 하루에 일당 금 551원 30전을 받고 월 약 25일 가동할 수 있었으므로 월 금 13,782원 50전의 수입을 올릴 수 있었고, 여기에 소득세를 공제하면, 13,782원 50전-〔 13,782원 50전×(100분의 7.7)-(20,000원-13,782원 50전)×(100분의 2.5)〕≒12,826원이 된다. (당심 변론종결 당시의 소득세법 기준이며 원이하 버림은 이하 같음) 여기서 다시 월 생계비 금 3,000원을 공제하면 소외 3의 월 순수입은 금 9,876원이 되며 소외 3은 이 사건 사고가 없었더라면 3년간의 군복무를 마치고 제대한 후 그의 평균여명이내인 55세까지 약 391개월간 계속 수입을 얻을 수 있었을 것이므로 이를 호프만식 계산법에 따라 월 5/12푼의 비율에 의한 중간이식을 공제하고 사고당시를 기준으로 일시에 청구하는 것으로 계산하면, 9,876원×(244.99648173-33.47773345)=2,088,959원이 되며 여기서 피고로부터 수령한 유족보상금 551,300원을 공제하면 금 1,537,659원이 되는 바, 위 갑 제1호증의 1에 의하여 인정되는 바와 같이 소외 3은 미혼 남자로서 원고 1은 소외 3의 아버지이고 원고 2는 그의 어머니이므로 소외 3의 손해배상 채권은 각 상속분에 따라 원고 1에게 금 1,025,106원〔1,537,659원×(3분의 2)〕, 원고 2에게 금 512,553원 〔1,537,659원×(3분의 1)〕이 각 상속되었다고 할 것이고, 따라서 피고는 원고 1, 2에게 각 위 금 상당의 손해를 배상하여야 할 의무가 있다고 할 것이다.

3. Nonparty 4 and 5’s property damage, Plaintiffs’ above data, property damage caused by Nonparty 4 and 5’s property damage, and the Defendant’s property damage amount to be paid to all the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff 1 and 2, and the reasons for the decision of a party member regarding the consolation money to be paid to all the Plaintiffs are the same as the reasons for the decision of the court below, and therefore, it shall be accepted under Article 390 of the Civil Procedure

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant has the duty to pay 1,025,100 won, 50 won, 1,075,106 won, 512,53 won, 50, 560 won, 562,53 won, 562,5753 won, and 10,000 won, 50 won, 10,000 won, 347,751 won, 390 won, 397,751 won, 397, 500 won, 50 won, 397,751 won, and 600 won, 9, 173,751 won, and 50,000 won, 50,000 won, 50,000 won, 50,000 won, 23,875, 37, 487, and 487, etc. of the plaintiffs' damages as property damages.

Justices Park Jong-su (Presiding Justice)