1. The duty of care of the crew when the ordinary train passes through the upper home for the electric utility; and

2. Whether a person, other than a party to a passenger transport contract, has suffered mental pain due to the non-performance of the transport contract, and paid funeral expenses, is entitled to claim consolation money and funeral expenses due to the non-performance of the above transport contract directly.

1. The train crew has the duty of care to close all the doors of the entrance and to induce a passenger to the safe passenger vehicle, if the regular train passes through the section where the upper home of the entire steel system is installed, while keeping the train at all times while opening the door of the entrance and operating the train at all times, and if the passenger is going to go to the platform, he has the duty of care to induce the passenger to the safe passenger vehicle.

2. In the event that the deceased died due to the train accident, even though the plaintiffs, who are the bereaved family members of the deceased, were suffering from mental distress, the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money cannot be accepted against the defendant, who is the passenger, on the ground that he was liable for damages under Article 148 (1) of the Commercial Act. Even if the plaintiff, who is the bereaved family, paid the funeral expenses of the deceased, the plaintiff, not the party to the passenger transport contract, immediately cannot claim for the amount of damages equivalent to

Article 148(1) of the Commercial Act

November 12, 1974, 74Da997, 77Da982, Sept. 28, 1977 (Gong572, Jul. 13, 1982, 1982, Gong572, Gong5735, Jul. 13, 1982 (Gong688, 750)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 and 2 an amount calculated by the rate of 5 percent per annum from July 28, 1983 to the day of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are five-minutes and four are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

The defendant shall pay 19,712,625 won to the plaintiff 1, 18,92,625 won to the plaintiff 2, and 18,92,625 won per annum from July 28, 1983 to the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the defendant, and 205 percent per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

1. Determination on this safety defense

In this regard, the defendant is the main defense of safety, under the premise that the plaintiffs' claim of this case is a claim for damages under the State Compensation Act, and therefore the plaintiffs' claim of this case should be dismissed on the basis that it is not a claim for damages under the Article 9 of the same Act. Thus, it is obvious fact that the plaintiffs' claim of this case is a claim for damages under Article 148 of the Commercial Act on the ground of the defendant's non-performance of obligation as a passenger passenger. In this case, it is not necessary to go through the procedure for a pre-determination under Article 9 of the State Compensation Act (Supreme Court Decision 81Da425 delivered on November 24, 1981). Thus, the above defendant's defense of safety is groundless.

2. Determination on the merits

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

No. 1 (No. 1), No. 3 (Physical Inspection Report by the Deceased), No. 1-1, No. 2,3 (Report on Accidents), and No. 7 (Report on Accident), and No. 8 (Woman’s Statement) of the same No. 1-3 (except for the part which is not trusted later among the statements No. 1-2, 3,7,8) of the above No. 1-2, and No. 2 of the witness’s testimony (except for the part which is not trusted later from the testimony by the Witness No. 2) and the purport of the oral argument that “No. 1-2,3,7, and no. 1-2 of the above-mentioned passenger transport equipment was installed within the train No. 1-2, the defendant is responsible for the above-mentioned passenger transport equipment after the above-mentioned passenger transport equipment was installed within the train No. 4-2, which had been installed within the train No. 1-237, Jul. 28, 1983.

However, the defendant did not get passengers on board the above train on the day and time of the accident, and conducted guidance for the prevention of the above falling accident, etc., and the above train crew should have closed all the doors of the above train after departure from the field, and it did not have any duty of care and measures required for passenger transportation such as inducing the above deceased to enter safe passenger cars, so the defendant did not have any responsibility for compensating for damages caused by the above accident, so it is hard to acknowledge that the above flight crew's non-party 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8's statements (excluding the above trusted part) and the above 6 (Certificate) of the above boom evidence as well as the above 201's testimony that all of the above boom evidence were installed on the ground that there were no concerns that the above boomer's non-party 2 had no reason to believe that the above boom and the above boomer's non-party 2 had no reason to believe that the above boom had no reason to believe it.

However, in full view of the evidence and the whole purport of the oral argument as seen earlier, the deceased may be recognized the fact that the deceased was faced with the accident by putting the body down to the top of the front platform of the train and exposing the body out of the train (Article 17 subparagraph 2 of the Railroad Act and Article 90 of the Railroad Act provide that the passengers of the train shall be punished if they are exposed to outside the train), and even if there is a risk of shocking on the upper part of the steel station installed adjacent to the railroad station, which was installed adjacent to the train, on the ground that the passenger car was unheated and heated after getting in the train, and the passenger car was loaded down at the lower part of the front platform of the train, and the body was exposed to the body outside of the train, and thus, the negligence of the deceased shall have a big cause of the above accident, but the defendant shall be held liable to compensate for the damages to the extent that the damage would be fully exempted, and thus, the defendant shall not be considered in calculating the amount of damages.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) A passive loss

In full view of the testimony and oral argument of Non-Party 1 from Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 (Certified Copy of Resident Registration Record Card), Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5 (Identification Card), 7-1, 2 (Distribution and Contents of Life Record Data), 8-1, 8-2 (Construction Price Mark and Contents), the deceased Non-Party 3 did not have any dispute over the average number of male who was ordinarily healthy before July 18, 1962 and left 20 years of age at the time of the accident of this case. The above deceased's graduation from his 1981 to his 1981, and Non-Party 1's evidence No. 1, 2 (Distribution and Contents of Life Record Data), and Non-Party 8's testimony and oral argument as of June 10, 1983. The above deceased's average number of male who was physically healthy at the time of the accident of this case was 47.22 years of age, and the above deceased's average number of those who were employed at the above 1, etc.

According to the above facts, the deceased non-party 3 suffered from military service due to the death of the above accident (=36 months) (the plaintiff filed a claim for deduction of lost earnings for the above period while the deceased did not complete his military service) during the three years after the accident occurred (=32 years and four months from August 1, 1986 to the completion of 55 years of age (=38 months, and less than the month as requested by the plaintiffs, as requested by the plaintiffs), 237,500 won (=9,500 x 25) monthly income, which is 158,33 won (=237,500 x 500 x 25) which is the monthly income from which the cost of living was deducted from the cost of living, which is 158,33 won (=237,500 x 2/30 as sought by the plaintiffs, and the amount less than the plaintiff shall be hereinafter the same shall apply). This damages will be paid monthly thereafter.

However, since the plaintiffs sought payment of all of the damages as at the time of the above accident at the same time, it is clear that it would be 3,319,216 won (158,333 】 243.93-3.477) when calculating the current price at the time of the above accident pursuant to the door-based calculation method that deducts the statutory intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month.

(2) Fruits offsetting

However, considering the negligence of the deceased non-party 3 above, it is reasonable to determine the amount of property damage that the defendant should compensate for to the deceased (=3,329,804 won) as 8,329,804 won (=33,319,216 x 25/100).

(3) Consolation money

Since it can be sufficiently recognized in light of the empirical rule that the above deceased suffered considerable mental pain by death at the scene due to the above accident, the defendant has a duty to pay the deceased money. Considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments, such as the age, family relation, property and educational degree of the above deceased, the course and result of the accident of this case, and the degree of negligence, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the above deceased shall be determined as KRW 250,000.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 alleged that they sought payment of KRW 1,00,000 as consolation money, separately from consolation money, to the defendant, on the ground that the above deceased's parent was killed due to the above accident. Thus, even if the above deceased died due to the above accident, the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money against the defendant, who is a passenger, is liable for damages under Article 148 (1) of the Commercial Act, cannot be accepted by the plaintiffs, who are not the parties to the above passenger transport contract (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu278, Jul. 13, 1982; 82Meu278, Jul. 13, 198). Thus, the above part of the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money is groundless.

(4) Funeral expenses

The plaintiff 1 asserts that since the above deceased paid funeral expenses of KRW 720,000,00 in total, as a result of the death of the above deceased due to the above accident, the plaintiff 1 claimed that the defendant be liable for damages equivalent to the above money. Thus, even if the above plaintiff paid funeral expenses of the deceased, the above plaintiff is not a party to the above passenger transport contract, and it is not immediately possible to claim damages equivalent to funeral expenses paid by the above plaintiff to the defendant who is a passenger, and thus, the above part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

(5) Inheritance relations

Therefore, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the above non-party deceased is 8,579,804 won in total (8,329,804 +250,000). However, the plaintiff 1 and the two, who are the property inheritors of the above deceased, inherited each of the above amount of KRW 4,289,902 (=8,579,804 x 1/2) out of the above amount of KRW 8,579,804 in accordance with their respective statutory shares of inheritance.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 28, 1983, which is the date of the above accident to the date of full payment (the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant, but it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence or scope of the above damages, and it shall not be accepted) to the plaintiff 1 and 2. Thus, the claim of this case of this case is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit, and the provisional execution declaration of Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the burden of litigation expenses and shall not be attached pursuant to the proviso of Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Judges Cho Jong-Ie (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-dae Korea