The case holding that when a person with a disability under the influence of alcohol dies from the electric vehicle that enters the subway platform, no liability for tort damage shall be held against a public law person who is a subway manager and operator.

The case holding that the tort liability of the above public corporation is not held on the grounds that there was no fault in failing to take measures for accident prevention on the ground that the congenital cerebral Bribery of the second degree disability did not have ordinary safety measures to be taken, or that there was no error in failing to take measures for accident prevention on the ground that the subway station platform did not have any other safety measures to be taken, or that there was no fault in finding in advance and failing to take appropriate measures, on the ground that the said public corporation did not take measures for accident prevention on the ground that the person with a astronomical cerebral chronology of the second degree was under the influence of alcohol in the subway platform while waiting for the electric vehicle while waiting for the electric vehicle.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Urban Transportation Corporation (Attorneys Seo Yong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 7, 2006

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay 93,670,210 won to the plaintiff 1, 90,670,210 won to the plaintiff 2, and 5% per annum from October 15, 2005 to the date of this judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties, or in combination with the statements and videos mentioned in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3-1 through 5, Eul evidence 5-1 through 2, Eul evidence 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence 11-4 through 15, 18, Eul evidence 1-1 through 18, and Eul evidence 12-1 through 18, respectively.

A. Nonparty 1 served as an insurance solicitor as a disabled person of Grade 2 with physical disability who cut the bridge and can not move well the left side due to the congenital cerebral Bribery. The plaintiffs are the parents of Nonparty 1, and the defendant is a public corporation that operates the Busan subway and is responsible for the safe operation of subway and safety within the subway platform.

B. On October 15, 2005, at around 21:03, Nonparty 1, while waiting for the electric vehicle while drunk from the viewing platform of the viewing station of the Busan subway Line 1 (hereinafter “instant platform”) operated by the Defendant, entered the electric vehicle into the station, Nonparty 1: (a) met with head on the right side of the front side of the electric vehicle entering the road beyond the safety line prior to stopping of the electric vehicle; (b) died from the brain side and the chest scar on the upper right side of the electric vehicle; and (c) died (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. At the time of the instant accident, Nonparty 2 entered the station, Nonparty 2: (a) discovered that Nonparty 1 got out of the safety line from approximately 60 meters prior to the instant accident; (b) took emergency action at the same time with setting off headlights; and (c) did not avoid collision. In addition, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant posted Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, public duty personnel at the instant platform, and carried out a historical patrol for 20 to 30 minutes per hour; (b) installed 25 CCTVs in the instant platform, installed six CCTV monitors in the customer information room, supervised vulnerable areas, such as platforms; and (c) installed and managed various signs to prevent the instant accident.

On the other hand, the platform of this case did not have a separate safety pen or screen board.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant, who is the managing body of the platform of this case, assigned safety personnel to the platform in order to protect the safety of passengers, installed safety facilities, such as entry protection zone, etc., to prepare for accidents if he finds that it is highly probable to identify the situation within the platform and cause accidents, such as CCTV, etc., and that the accident of this case occurred due to the mistake that did not take such measures despite the fact that there was a duty of care to broadcast warning or take other safety measures. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the non-party 1 and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this

(b) Markets:

(1) Determination as to the assertion that there was an error in failing to assign safety personnel on platform platforms

At the time of the instant accident, the fact that two public duty personnel were posted to the platform and were engaged in patrol duty and safety personnel were not posted on a regular basis are as seen earlier. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in addition to the overall purport of each of the aforementioned evidence, the platform of this case is installed at regular intervals from the line and thus, passengers waiting for the electric vehicle are waiting for the electric vehicle out of the above yellow safety line until the electric vehicle stops. Since the electric vehicle enters the station, the electric vehicle is approaching the station, and thus, the electric vehicle is approaching the station, and thus, the public duty of the subway was reduced during the time of the instant accident, and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s duty to take measures to prevent any danger and injury to the general safety platform of Busan including the safety train of the passengers, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s duty to take measures to prevent danger and injury to the general safety platform of the passengers including the safety train of the air vehicle in light of the nature of the public transportation in the subway at the time of the instant accident.

(2) Determination as to the assertion that there was an error in failing to install safety facilities, such as entry protection zones.

The facts that the Defendant did not have the right to protect access to the platform of this case are as seen earlier. However, in light of the fare level of subway stations and the Defendant’s financial situation, screen air transiter appears to have excessive installation costs, and accordingly, Article 30-2 of the Rules on the Construction of Urban Railroads does not necessarily require the Defendant to install only one screen or safety gate (Provided, That the above provision is applicable only to the station constructed after the enforcement of the above rule, and viewing stations are not subject to its application). In light of the fact that the installation of screen gate is difficult to be deemed to be within the scope of safety measures ordinarily to be installed. However, in reality where the risk of falling platform accidents exists, it is difficult to view that the platform manager at least safety gate was installed to prevent the fall accident, but it is difficult to view that Nonparty 1 at the time of the accident that Nonparty 1 did not have the causal link between the Defendant and the previous platform before the accident was stopped.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(3) The determination as to the assertion that there was an error in failing to perform the duty to take appropriate measures when finding a person who has a risk of causing a safety accident, such as a client, etc.

According to each of the above evidence, it is acknowledged that Non-party 1 was involved in the accident of this case, since Non-party 1 was instructed to walk on the platform of Naoman and the train arrived at the Naoman's platform at the time of the accident, and then coming from the train coming to the platform, and then going to the track beyond the Agr safety line and going to the track. Thus, although Non-party 1 discovered Non-party 1 out of the platform safety line at the time of the accident of this case, although Non-party 1 discovered Non-party 1 out of the platform at the time of the accident of this case, it appears that the station employee who was ascertaining the passenger situation of CCTV at the time of the accident of this case, sent a warning or did not have sufficient time to stop using the subway, and there was no evidence to prove that Non-party 1 was unable to use the subway due to drinking, or that the defendant could have grasp this situation in advance, it cannot be viewed that there was an error by finding in advance and taking appropriate measures against the defendant.

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiffs' above assertion.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)