logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2019.10.17 2017두47045
운항정지처분취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) the degree of “reasonable duty of care” the air transport business entity owes to appoint and supervise an aircrew pursuant to the latter part of Article 115-3(1)45 of the former Aviation Act (amended by Act No. 1416, Mar. 29, 2016; hereinafter the same) refers to “the duty of care to the extent that it could be avoided by predicting the risks of accidents ordinarily occurring by air employees; and (b) the breach of the duty of care refers only to the duty of care to the extent that it is intentional or gross negligence.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “the duty of care for appointment and supervision of aviation personnel of an air transportation business entity under the former Public Aviation Act” contrary to what is alleged in

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff failed to prove the grounds of disposition as stipulated in the instant provision, based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff neglected to pay due attention to the pilot convenience related to the instant flight; (b) did not provide sufficient education and training to prevent the aircraft accident to its employees; and (c) the Plaintiff’s breach of the Plaintiff’s duty of care to appoint and supervise the instant pilot was

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the burden of proof, etc. of the grounds for disposition, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the Plaintiff violated the duty of care.

arrow