(State) 204Na89 Damage (ar)

Kim 00

Chicago-si

Attorney Lee Dong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. Objection;

Representative Market Kim ○

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. A stock company;

Current unknown whereabouts;

Seoul Last Address

Park ○○○

An incorporated association

Seoul

Representative Chairman ○○○

Law Firm ○○, Attorneys Kim ○-○, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Jeju District Court Decision 2003Gahap1744 Delivered on November 27, 2003

June 11, 2004

October 8, 2004

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant ○○○, an incorporated association, is revoked, and this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed

2. All of the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

3. All of the costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, Defendant ○○○○○, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 418,523,151 won with 5% interest per annum from October 21, 200 to the rendering of the judgment of this case, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The Plaintiff: Defendant ○○, Defendant ○○, Defendant ○○, Defendant ○○○, and Defendant ○○○, an incorporated association, shall pay 5% interest per annum from November 21, 2001 to November 27, 2003, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant ○○○, an incorporated association: It is so decided as per Disposition 1.

1. Basic facts

[Ground of recognition] Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○○○○, and between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants, Gap 1, 3, Gap 13-1, 4, 10, 11, 17, oral argument

The purport of the whole

가. 피고 주식회사 ○○○은 2000. 10. 20.부터 같은 달 22.까지 사이에 제주도 일대의 일반 포장도로에서 '2000제주코리아랠리대회'라는 자동차 경주대회를 개최하였다.

B. The ○○○○○ and ○○○○○○ had participated in the instant racing by ○○○○ as a driver (Raber) and by ○○○○○ as an auxiliary driver (copier). The network ○○○ had engaged in the instant racing 3 and 4 times before the instant competition, and leap was first the instant competition.

C. At around 16:50 on October 21, 200, the network ○○○ was an accident that fells down with a valley of two meters in depth on the left side of the main direction while escaping from the road without plucking and digging up hand at the main direction, and died from two damage at the ○○ Hospital linked to the main direction, around 18:15 on the same day.

D. The Plaintiff is the mother of ○○, who is the sole heir of ○○○.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Claim against Defendant ○○○, Inc.

(1) Occurrence of liability and limitation of liability

The Plaintiff is obligated to take necessary measures to prevent accidents, such as establishing a safe course, installing sufficient safety facilities, assigning safety personnel, and providing the participants with sufficient opportunity for responding to the course at the request of the commissioner of the Jeju Provincial Police Agency. Although the course was partially reduced or changed, the Plaintiff did not give sufficient opportunity to respond to the participants, and did not sufficiently inform the participants of the maximum speed of up to 60 km. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant ○○○○○○, Inc. did not install the safety facilities, such as containers, at the anticipated point of the accident, and did not place safety personnel without properly installing the safety facilities at the anticipated point of the accident. Accordingly, the Defendant ○○○, Inc. is liable to compensate for the damages inflicted on the Plaintiff by the instant accident.

However, the ○○○○○ voluntarily participated in the instant competition where the risk of the accident exists. Although he/she voluntarily participated in the instant competition where he/she had the ability of his/her team, the performance of his/her motor vehicle, and road conditions, he/she is forced to drive the motor vehicle in a manner consistent with the road conditions, he/she was in a unreasonable manner honded from the kier kindro to the road where he/she was unable to properly handle hand, and the above negligence of ○○○○○ was also caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage. Therefore, in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the said Defendants, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the said Defendants. Furthermore, since the vehicle racing has a large degree of risk of the occurrence of the accident and the danger of human life at the time of the occurrence of the accident, and the safety measures taken by the host of the racing alone alone, the driver is responsible for the main accident if he/she escaped from the road due to his/her own mistake, not any other external factors.

(2) Amount of damages

[Ground] The determination of confession under Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

㈎ 재산적손해

○○’s lost income: 334,451,419 won

Retirement allowance of the network ○○○: 21,071,732 won

Funeral expenses of the plaintiff: Three million won;

Total: 358,523,151

Limited liability 20% ? 71,704,630 won

㈏ 위자료

○○○○: 8 million won

Plaintiff: 4 million won

㈐ 합계 : 83,704,630원

B. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

원고는, 이 사건 대회는 일반 도로에서 이루어지는 자동차경주대회로서 관할 지방자치단체의 승인 및 협조 없이는 개최가 불가능한데, 피고 제○○는 이 사건 대회의 유치를 통한 관광 이미지 제고 등 홍보효과를 목적으로 그 소속의 관광경영과를 주무부서로 지정하여 대회 관련 업무를 담당하게 하였으며, 대회 당일에는 200여명의 공무원을 동원하여 대회 운영을 지원하게 하였는바, 이러한 피고 제○○로서는 적절한 랠리코스 선택, 안전시설 설치 및 안전요원 배치, 참가자의 도로교통법 준수, 충분한 사전 코스답사 등을 통하여 대회가 안전하게 치러질 수 있도록 피고 주식회사 ○○○을 지휘 · 감독하거나, 또는 피고 제○○가 직접 위와 같은 안전에 필요한 조치를 취할 의무가 있다고 할 것인데, 피고 제○○는 대회 개최가 곤란하다는 제주지방경찰청으로부터의 수차례의 회신에도 불구하고 오히려 제주지방경찰청장에게 안전사고에 대하여 책임을 지겠다고까지 하면서 대회의 개최를 강행하였으며, 안전을 위하여 필요한 위와 같은 조치는 전혀 취하지 않았는바, 피고 제○○는 위와 같은 불법행위로 인하여 발생한

It asserts that the accident of this case is liable for damages.

(2) Facts of recognition

[Ground] Gap 4 through 6, Gap 1-5 through 8, 12 through 13, Eul 4 through 10, Eul 8-1, 2, and Eul 8-1, 2, and the first instance trial witness Kim-○, Ma○, and the purport of the whole pleadings

㈎ 피고 주식회사 ○○○은 1999. 2. 초에 강원도 용평에서 자동차 스피드경기를 개최하였고, 1999. 7. 경에는 강원도 평창에서 비포장 자동차랠리대회를 개최한 경험이 있는 회사인데, 제주도에서의 포장도로 랠리대회를 기획하고 2000. 8. 초순부터 같은 해 9. 말경까지 사전답사를 거쳐 이 사건 대회의 개최예정지를 선정하였고, 피고 제주시에게 대회 개최와 관련한 협조를 요청하였다. 피고 제○○는 이 사건 대회를 개최함으로써 관광객 유치 및 홍보효과가 있을 것으로 판단하여 위 요청을 수락하였고, 피고 주식회사 ○○○으로부터 대회로 인한 안전사고를 방지하기 위한 준비에 만전을 다하며 대회와 관련한 모든 비용을 부담할 것을 약속받고, 피고 제○○는 대회와 관련한 각종 편의와 행정적인 지원을 하여 주기로 약속하였다.

㈏ 이에 따라 피고 제○○는 제주지방경찰청장에게 대회개최와 관련한 협조를 요청하였는데, 제주지방경찰청장은 일반도로에서 제한속도를 넘는 자동차경주대회를 개최하는 것은 도로교통법시행규칙 제12조(자동차등의 속도제한)에 저촉되어 경찰에서 승인할 수 없고, 꼭 대회를 개최하여야 한다면 당초 예정된 제주시 및 북제주군 일대의 14개 코스 구간 중 9개 코스 구간을 제외한 5개 코스 구간에서만 대회를 개최하되, 충분한 안전시설과 안전요원을 배치하고 제한속도 60㎞를 준수하여야 한다는 회신을 하였다.

㈐ 그러자 피고 제○○는 피고 주식회사 ○○○의 제안에 따라 2000. 10. 17.경 제주 지방경찰청장에게 충분한 안전시설 설치 및 안전요원 배치 등 안전사고 예방에 최선을 다할 것이니 위 대회가 원활히 진행될 수 있도록 교통통제 등에 관하여 협조를 요청하는 공문을 보내고, 피고 주식회사 ○○○에게는 위 제주지방경찰청장의 회신에 따라 5개 코스 구간으로 변경하여 대회를 진행하고 충분한 안전시설 설치, 안전요원 배치, 제한속도를 준수함으로써 대회추진에 차질이 없도록 하여 줄 것을 촉구하였다.

㈑ 이 사건 대회의 홍보, 참가자 모집, 상금 및 참가비 결정, 경기규칙 제정 등 경기진행에 관한 제반사항은 피고 주식회사 ○○○이 담당하였으며, 피고 제○○는 앰불런스 운영계획, 헬기운영계획, 행사진행요원파견, 교통안전대책수립 등의 대책을 세우고, 이 사건 대회 당일 교통질서유지 및 일반인의 접근을 막기 위하여 직원들을 코스내에 배치하여 대회 구간으로 경주용차량 외 다른 차량이나 인근 주민들이 진입하지 못하도록 통제하였다.

㈒ 이 사건 사고가 발생한 구간인 제6코스(변경후)는 제주지방경찰청장이 당초 제외구간으로 선정한 구간은 아니며, 이 사건 사고가 발생한 지점은 완만한 내리막 커브길로서 당초 과속 위험이 있어 라바콘(라바콘은 그 자체로서 차량 충돌시 완충작용을 하는 것이 아니라 과속의 우려가 있는 직선주로에 장애물로 설치되어 지나친 과속을 방지하는 역할을 하는 도구에 불과하다)을 설치하여야 할 장소로 지적된 곳도 아니다. 다만, 이 사건 차량이 추락한 지점은 2m 깊이의 계곡이고 도로 가장자리에는 40~50cm 높이의 추락방지용 방호벽이 설치되어 있었지만, 억새수풀이 우거져 있어 도로에서는 위 방호벽이 잘 보이지 않는 상태였다.

(3) Determination

As seen earlier, Defendant ○○○ was in a position to have the effect of attracting tourists and promoting the instant games, and to provide various convenience, to provide human resources, and to take control measures on roads with respect to the instant games. However, this is merely an administrative support of a local government that supports the operation of the instant games, and the progress of the instant games related to the participants, such as the operation of the games, the management of participating players, the installation of safety facilities, the placement of safety personnel, the selection of courses, and the establishment of sports rules, etc., are entirely in charge of Defendant ○○○○, Inc., Ltd., which is the outside of the instant racing. In addition, it cannot be deemed that Defendant ○○, who was in a position to direct and supervise the matters related to the progress of the games, such as the selection of courses, the speed limit of participants, the installation of safety facilities, and the placement of safety personnel.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the point in which the instant accident occurred is particularly dangerous compared to other roads, or there is a safety defect in the safety, and in this case, where the automobile competition is held on the general road with a length exceeding km, not on the closed racing-only road, it is difficult to see that Defendant ○○, merely providing administrative support related to the provision, etc. of racing roads, has the duty to take safety measures, such as installing a buffer system, etc. for the prevention of fall, at each of the same dangerous places as the instant accident location.

Ultimately, the above-mentioned facts cannot be deemed to have been negligent in directing and supervising the instant accident to Defendant ○○, or in neglecting the duty of care, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant Jeju was negligent. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on the claim against ○○○, an incorporated association

The Plaintiff: (a) officially recognized the instant games and formed an organizing committee for the instant games with Defendant ○○○, Inc., and carried out the instant games; and (b) asserted that the Defendant also did not take measures to prevent accidents as seen earlier in the claim portion against Defendant ○○○○, Inc.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that ○○○○, the Director General of the Sports Bureau of the Defendant, an incorporated association, immediately before the instant competition, responded to the courses in order to review whether the ○○○○○, a defendant incorporated association, had officially approved the instant games and participated in the operation of the instant games. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

In addition, the plaintiff stated that the defendant's ○○○, a defendant's incorporated association, was officially recognized in the Pamplet of the game of this case, and the major domestic media also reported that the game of this case was officially approved by ○○○, a defendant's incorporated association, formed the appearance that the defendant's ○○, and thus, the defendant's corporate association is responsible for compensation for damages of ○○○, which trusted the above appearance. However, as long as the accident of this case was not caused by the above appearance, the defendant's ○○, as long as the above appearance was intentionally or negligently caused by the formation of the above appearance, there is no ground to deem that the defendant is liable for tort against ○○ and the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant ○○, a corporation, is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim against the defendant and the claim against the defendant ○○, an incorporated association, and the defendant ○○○○○, are dismissed as it is without merit. The defendant's appeal against the part against the defendant ○○, an incorporated association, which has different conclusions from the judgment of the court of first instance, is accepted, and the part of the plaintiff's claim is revoked, and all of the remaining parts are just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.

The presiding judge ○○○

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon

Judges Yellow ○○