A. Whether the duty to verify the number of passengers on board and passengers on board falls within the scope of the duty of due care for transportation;

(b) Requirements for liability pursuant to Articles 830 and 148 of the Commercial Act for the damages sustained by passengers of a marine passenger carrier;

A. It cannot be said that the carrier did not confirm the number of passengers on board and the number of passengers on board for maritime passenger transport and that it falls within the scope of the duty of care to transport that could cause human life accidents.

B. The provisions of Article 148 of the Commercial Act applicable mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 830 of the same Act shall not be exempted from liability for compensation unless it is proved that a passenger was not negligent in giving due attention to the carriage of the carrier or its employees, and the carrier shall not be held liable for damages if the passenger was damaged. Thus, even if the passenger was damaged, the carrier shall not be held liable for the damages unless it falls within the scope of the carrier or its employees' duty of care for the carriage of the carrier or its employees.

Article 830 of the Commercial Act, Article 148 of the Commercial Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 69Da832 Decided July 29, 1967

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Jung Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na187 delivered on April 24, 1987

The appeal is 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 held that, based on evidence, the deceased non-party's departure from the port of January 18, 1986, 19:30 Busan, and the defendant's right to embark 5, which is scheduled to arrive at the port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of 07:00 following the date, and the defendant cannot be held liable for damages pursuant to Articles 830 and 148 of the Commercial Act, on the ground that it was found that the deceased's discovery of the above passenger ship was 8 days after the departure of port of port of port of Busan, or 1.26.02:30 of the past year, since there was no evidence to support that the accident of this case caused the deceased's death of the deceased on board the above passenger ship of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of port of which the deceased had been found.

In light of the records, the above deceased was found as a dysium after eight days of departure of the above passenger ship from the port, and there is no evidence to deem that the deceased dysiumd on board the above passenger ship and dysiumd around that time (the date and time of death of the above dysium has not been symmetricd). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and persuasive, and it is not reasonable to conclude that the deceased died due to the transportation during the transport, on the sole basis that the deceased was discovered as dysium with the right to embark (the date and time of death of the above dysium). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and correct, since the carrier did not confirm the number of passengers on board and the number of passengers on the marine passenger transport, it cannot be deemed as falling

The provisions of Article 148 of the Commercial Act applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 830 of the same Act apply mutatis mutandis only to cases where a passenger suffered damage due to the carriage while the carriage was conducted by the carrier or its employees, and where the damage was caused by the carrier or its employees belonging to the scope of the duty of care in connection with the carriage, the carrier cannot be exempted from the liability for compensation unless it proves that the carrier or its employees did not neglect the duty of care in connection with the carriage, and where the passenger suffered damage, the carrier shall not inquire about the cause thereof, and the carrier shall not be held liable for the damage unless the damage was caused by the carriage or within the scope of the duty of care in connection with the carriage of the carrier or its employees (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da832 delivered on July 29, 1969). Furthermore, the court below did not examine the transport of the deceased with the above obligation of care in relation to the transport of the deceased as a passenger ship even though it did not neglect the duty of care in relation to the transport of the deceased.

Ultimately, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the liability for damages suffered by passengers or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the judgment of the court below.

The assertion is groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)