Whether a railroad transport contract exists in the future section;

In principle, a railroad transport contract shall continue to exist between the starting station and the arrival station indicated in the boarding pass: Provided, That in cases where a passenger was on board due to a cause not attributable to him/her, even if the procedures such as extending the contract were not taken, an accident that occurred after the boarding is exceptionally deemed to have existed during the passenger transport contract even in the passenger transport contract even in the relevant monthly section.

Article 148 of the Commercial Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 79Da1070 decided August 14, 1979 (Non-public II Articles 148 (18) 418 of the Commercial Act, 12181 house 27B249 No. 61888)

Plaintiff

Korea

Daejeon District Court (84 Gohap482) in the first instance

1. The part of the judgment below against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against that part shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the first and second instances of students.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,498,300 won with an annual interest rate of five percent from December 28, 1981 to the day of complete payment.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 1-2 (Report of Accidents on Railroad Operation) and evidence Nos. 2 (In the 20:00 on November 15, 1981, the non-party purchased boarding passes (No. 23096) indicated as the arrival station for the purpose of going to the YYY from Seoul to the YYYYYYYY, and boarded the special-class train No. 121 on December 15, 1981. The non-party boarded the above special-class train boarding from Seoul Station and stopped one minute after arriving in the 20:59 on the same day, and stopping the above station around 21:00 on the same day. The non-party was not the arrival station, and the non-party cannot be recognized as the non-party's non-party's liability for damages from the above passenger vehicle station, which is the Seoul Station, due to the non-party's non-party's death of the above passenger vehicle.

The plaintiff, however, caused that the above train that the non-party boarded on the day of the accident of this case was caused by a large number of passengers sending the horse to Seoul and staying home, and the non-party did not get off in the river, which is the destination station due to the congestion of passengers, and the non-party failed to get off the train at the bottom of the entrance to get off the train in the next calendar, and died after falling down with the wind that the passengers tight with the vibration of the train. The above accident did not consider the capacity of the train and caused many passengers to get off a large number of passengers by the excess of the boarding tickets without considering the capacity of the train, the non-party got off to the Gangseo-gu in danger that the non-party did not suffer any defect in the arrival station due to the congestion of passengers and caused a dangerous accident. Thus, the non-party's boarding train continues to exist in the transport contract as it is, and the defendant is liable to compensate the mother of the plaintiff due to the non-party's default and its damage caused by the above accident.

Therefore, in principle, a railroad transport contract remains in existence between the station of arrival and the station of arrival indicated in the boarding passes. However, even if a passenger was on board due to a lack of his own responsibility, such procedures as renewal of the contract were not taken, the accident that occurred after the passenger transport contract continued during the passenger transport period (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da1070 delivered on August 14, 1979). However, in this case, the non-party's assertion that the non-party did not go beyond the above station and the above station of arrival and the non-party's refusal to go beyond the above station was due to the reasons that the non-party's failure to go beyond the above station and the rice station of arrival was not attributable to the non-party's failure to go beyond the above station's responsibility (the non-party's assertion that the plaintiff's failure to go beyond the above 1, 22, and 3,4,000 passengers' boarding trains evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5,000 square meters (the above evidence No. 6).

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit. The judgment of the court below is unfair to accept part of the plaintiff's claim, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, so the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim for that part is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost all of the first and second trials.

Judges Kim Jae-jin (Presiding Judge)