The case holding that an accident occurred due to defects in the installation and preservation of a reservoir, where a person who was missing in the reservoir is sought to leave the reservoir.

The case holding that an accident occurred due to defects in the installation and preservation of a reservoir where a person who is missing in the reservoir is sought to leave the reservoir.

Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act, Article 758 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Attorney Go Young-deok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na59156 delivered on April 1, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination on the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney

If the facts are duly determined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the accident occurred due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the above reservoir, which was a structure installed and managed by the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defect in the installation and preservation of the structure, such as the theory of the court below, and there is no reason to dispute.

2. Determination on the above grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

In light of the records and comparison of relevant evidence, it cannot be deemed that the judgment below did not properly examine the circumstances to be taken into account in the offsetting of negligence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no illegality of failing to satisfy the reasons. If the facts were to be duly established by the court below, even if all the circumstances were to be considered, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on liability for damages due to defects in the installation and preservation of structures and comparative negligence, and thereby, it cannot be deemed that there was no reason to view the above non-party's negligence under consideration.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

As the court below duly confirmed the facts, if two non-party, other than the above non-party, who was enrolled in the second grade of ○○ High School, went to the Olympic Park, and go to the defense of the above reservoir in order to go to the art gallery located within the Seoul Dae Park and go to the art gallery, and the above non-party 1 was coming to the above reservoir and went to the above reservoir in order for the deceased to go back to the reservoir, the court below did not accept the judgment of the court below as a matter of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the liability due to defects in the installation and preservation of structures, or the legal principles as to the causation of negligence or the responsibility for damages, which are not justified. The court below did not accept the judgment of the court below to the same extent as the negligence of the above deceased, who is the above deceased's family members (the above deceased's or the plaintiffs' losses were caused by the death). Thus, it is consistent with our sound ethics appraisal and the ideology of social justice and equity.

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)