Where a fault was not examined and determined as to whether the victim was negligent;

When the victim sits in the inner base of another unit, which is not his/her own military unit, the perpetrator was conducting an inspection of the gun that the members of the victim's military unit was cut to guard his/her superior while conducting a gun inspection of the fire-fighting unit, and passed through the victim's check, the victim could have sufficiently known that the gun was charged with the fire-fighting because he/she was the total of the members of his/her military unit, and was brought about for the security. Furthermore, the perpetrator could have predicted that the gun in his/her own military unit was in the process of a gun inspection, and thus, the perpetrator could have anticipated that there was a concern that the fire-fighting in his/her own military unit might be broken out. Therefore, even if the perpetrator did not assert the comparative negligence, the court should judge the fault of the victim in a lawsuit disputing liability for compensation.

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Park Jong-young et al.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1687 delivered on November 13, 1968, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na1687 delivered on November 13, 1968

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice shall decide on the grounds for appeal.

The fact that the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below was confirmed that the non-party 1, who belongs to the non-party 1, 65 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

Therefore, the plaintiff Park Jong-young could have predicted that the total accident in this case was caused by a total fire, which was held for the security of the 8th commander, and that the accident in this case was caused by the non-party 1's total fire-fighting in this case. In such a case, if the non-party 1 did not have such forecast, it is reasonable to judge whether the accident in this case was caused by negligence or whether the accident in this case could have been prevented by a smoke. If the plaintiff had been caused by negligence, the court below should have considered the above negligence in determining the amount of damages, even if the defendant did not make a claim for comparative negligence, the court below should have determined the amount of damages without examining and determining the above facts, and should have determined the amount of damages.

Therefore, by the assent of all participating judges, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)