2016Da42633 Compensation for damages

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

H

Busan High Court Decision 2015Na4993 decided August 25, 2016

January 25, 2017

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, on March 30, 2013, it is highly probable that the network I (hereinafter referred to as "scoods") caused death to the screen of the instant motor boat operated by the Defendant from around 12:10 to 12:40 on March 30, 2013, the Defendant only left the area where the accident occurred after moving KRW 30,000 per person from the high-raccoo ice to the sea area under the name of air rental fee and motor boat usage fee, and that there is no way to control or control the scoods (hereinafter referred to as "coods for convenience"), it is difficult for the network to keep the safety of the motor boat by itself or by promoting its safety by not using the scoods or by not using the scoods at a different speed from the above scoods (hereinafter referred to as "coods") and determined that it is reasonable to recognize that the scoods have to the above safety rules.

2. Judgment of the court below

A. However, it is difficult to accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

① It shall be deemed that a person operating a ice-only vessel at any time within a permitted zone has a duty of care to ensure safe operation by checking whether the vessel has already been running before, after, and after, the operation of the ice-only vessel or has already been running in the vicinity of the ice-only vessel; ② the risk of collision with the vessel when running a ice-only vessel while running a ice-only vessel while running a scoo-tamp shall remain common. It is difficult to conclude that the safety of the vessel from the danger of collision with the ice-only vessel solely depends on her own care due to the reduction of lucence or lack of sight or restriction on the free movement of the body, etc.; ③ The Defendant appears to have been aware of the circumstances that the ice-only vessel was operating on the day of this case, and that the Defendant did not have a scoo-out vessel at any time more than the Defendant’s own time to check the safety of the ice-only vessel, and in light of the fact that she did not have a scoo-only any other situation.

B. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to whether the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care in operating the instant motorboat, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on negligence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Kim Gin-young