The duty of care of bathing beach managers to prevent accidents of the diverse of water;

As a result of the management and maintenance of bathing beaches with entrance fees, in particular, in cases where there is a high marine wave, the duty of care shall be to install the pipeline facilities to look at the attitudes of the bathing beachs in line with the size of the bathing beach, to increase the structural personnel or maritime safety personnel, to restrict the desire to enter the bathing through safety personnel and the police dispatched to the place, to notify the risks to the safety personnel and the police, etc., and to take the desire to enter the bathing by giving them notice of the risks to them, and to prevent the above structural personnel and the safety personnel from entering the water depth by taking into account the attitudes of the visitors at the prescribed location, and to take prompt and appropriate rescue measures if there is an accident or report on the accident on the water.

Articles 750 and 758 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

East Sea-Si

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 6,214,237 won, 6,214,237 won, 3,4,5, and 6,237 won, 300 won per annum from July 18, 1986 to August 25, 1987, 5% per annum, and 25% per annum from the 26th of the same month to the 26th of the same month.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are divided into four parts, one of which is the defendant, and the other is the defendant's expense.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 20,427,262 won to the plaintiff 1 and 20,427,262 won to the plaintiff 3,4,5, and 6 respectively, and 50,000 won to each of them from July 18, 1986 to the next day of the delivery of the copy of the complaint, 5% per annum, and 25% per annum from the next day to the next day of the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and a declaration of provisional execution is sought.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant representative claimed that the plaintiffs' claim for this case against the defendant Si, which is a local government, for damages caused by the intention, negligence, or defect in the installation and management of the deceased bathing beach in the course of maintaining and managing it. The defendant representative asserted that since the defendant did not go through the pre-determination procedure under the State Compensation Act, it should be dismissed by an illegal lawsuit. Thus, according to the reference materials of the plaintiffs' attorney submitted in this case, the defendant representative filed an application for compensation on August 27, 1986 on the ground that the non-party 1 died due to the defect in the construction and management of the public structure of the defendant city, but it can be known that the application was dismissed on February 23, 1987, which was before the closing of the argument in this case. Thus, the above main defense of the defendant representative is groundless.

2. Judgment on the merits

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1, 2호증(각 호적등본), 갑 제4호증의 1, 2(각 사진), 갑 제7호증(수상안전요원근무수칙), 갑 제10호증(진술조서, 을 제1호증의 5와 같음), 을 제4호증(수상안전요원담당구역현황), 증인 이정웅의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제3호증(사체검안서)의 각 기재 및 같은 갑 제9호증(진술조서, 을 제1호증의 4와 같다)의 일부기재(뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분 제외)와 증인 소외 4, 동 소외 3, 2, 5, 6의 각 일부증언(각 뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분 제외), 당원의 동해지방해운항만청장에 대한 사실조회결과 등에 변론의 전취지를 종합하여 보면, 1. 피고시는 관광사업법에 따라 관광지로 지정된 피고시 소재 망상해수욕장을 유지, 관리하면서 입장객에게 입장료 200원씩을 징수하여 왔는 바, 위 망상해수욕장은 해변의 길이가 약 1420미터이고, 위험지역을 표시하여 부표를 설치하는 해변에서 약 50미터까지의 해상이 깊이 약 1 내지 1.5미터인 사실, 2. 그리고 피고시는 위 해수욕장의 입욕객의 안전을 위하여 위 해수욕장 중간에 망루 2곳을 설치하고 구조를 위한 모터보트 3척을 배치하였으며, 약 284미터 간격으로 도합 경찰 6명, 전경 12명, 인명구조원 5명, 수상안전요원 12명(오전) 내지 17명(오후)을 배치하였던 사실, 3. 그런데 망 소외 1이 그의 친구 3명과 함께 1986.7.17. 위 망상해수욕장에 각 입장료 200원씩을 내고 입장하여 그곳에 있는 망상해수욕장관리사무소에서 야영지 1곳을 금 700원에 빌려 야영을 하고, 그 다음날인 동월 18. 11:40경 친구인 소외 2와 함께 수영을 하기 위하여 위 해수욕장 북쪽 해안에서 약 25미터 떨어진 수중으로 들어갔던 바, 이러한 경우 위 일시경 위 해상에는 파도가 최고 약 1.5미터까지 높게 일고 있었으므로 피고시로서는 위 해수욕장 규모에 비추어 해수욕객을 동태를 살피는 관망시설을 완비함은 물론 구조요원이나 수상안전요원을 증원하도록 하고, 위 안전요원 및 그곳에 파견된 경찰 등을 통하여 입욕을 제한하거나, 확성기로 그 위험을 고지하여 입욕을 삼가하도록 함과 동시에 위 구조요원 및 안전요원들이 정하여 진 위치에서 입욕객의 동태를 살피면서 물속 깊이 들어가지 않도록 하는 등의 지도계몽을 하여야 하고, 만일 수상에서 불의의 사고를 발견하거나 사고의 신고가 있을 때에는 신속, 적절한 구조조치를 취하도록 하여야 할 의무가 있음에도, 피고시는 위 해수욕장의 규모에 맞도록 망루를 증설하거나, 망루에 관망설비를 제대로 갖추지 아니하고, 위 구조요원이나 수상안전요원을 증설, 배치하지 아니하였으며, 위 배치된 수상안전요원이나 구조요원 역시 자기의 위치에서 주어진 임무인 수상안전사고예방을 위한 조치를 취하지 아니한 채 자리를 떠나 있으면서 위와 같은 높은 파도에 따른 입욕제한 등의 조치를 취하지 아니하였고, 사고시를 대비하여 구조를 위한 선박을 즉시 출동할 수 있도록 조치를 취하지 아니하였으며, 피고시에서도 구조요원이 구조에 필요한 잠수용구 등 장비를 갖추지 아니하는 등의 과실로 인하여, 위 같은 날 12:00경 위 소외 망인의 친구인 소외 3, 4 등이 그곳에 설치된 바다파출소를 통하여 위 소외 망인과 소외 2가 위 해상 25미터 지점에서 파도에 휩싸여 구조가 요청된다고 신고를 하였으나, 구조요원의 부족과 그들이 제자리에서 근무하지 아니하므로 즉시 구조에 임하지 못하였고, 또 구조를 위한 모터보트는 소형인데다 즉시 작동할 준비도 되어 있지 아니하여 구조에 임하지 못함으로써 위 소외 망인이 파도에 휩싸여 익사하게 된 사실, 4. 한편 원고 1, 2는 위 소외 망인의 부모, 원고 3, 4, 5는 형제자매들, 원고 6은 그의 조부인 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 반하는 듯한 위 갑 제9호증의 일부기재 및 위 증인들의 각 일부증언(각 위에서 믿는 부분 제외) 등은 이를 믿지 아니하고 달리 반증이 없다.

According to the above facts of recognition, this accident is deemed to have occurred due to negligence in the duties of the above bathing beach staff or the above water safety personnel, rescue personnel, etc. of the defendant city. Thus, the defendant Si has a duty to compensate all damages suffered by the above non-party deceased and the plaintiffs due to the above accident.

On the other hand, according to the above evidence, the above non-party deceased was working on the sea above, and he was not equipped with a father, etc., as well as a subsidiary equipment for swimming, so even if he did not enter the sea or enter the sea, the above non-party deceased's negligence in failing to exercise due care to make him take a bath at a place adjacent to the coast, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the above accident was caused. Thus, the negligence of the above non-party deceased was a large cause of the above accident, and thus, it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages.

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) The net income of the deceased non-party 1 and the offsetting of negligence

In full view of the purport of the pleading in the above evidence Nos. 1 and 2, evidence Nos. 6-1, 2 (the sign and content of each household life tag), and evidence Nos. 6-1, 2 (construction price sign and content) without dispute over each establishment, the above non-party 1 was healthy male who left 20 years and 20 months at the time of the above accident, and the average life expectancy of the same age is 46 years, and the above non-party 1 was old at his address, and was in the first year of the household school management department at the time of the above accident, and was expected to work for the city after completion of military service, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the non-party 1 could not be seen that the city wage of the deceased was 7,400, near the time of the above accident at which the plaintiffs sought, and that the non-party 1 could not be seen as working for the plaintiff's future labor until the day of May 1, 1986.

Therefore, during the period from the age of 24 to the end of 55 of the age of 18,00 won (7,400 won x 25) for which the plaintiffs seek during 398 months, the above non-party deceased suffered losses of 123,34 won (185,00 won-(185,000 won-(185,000 x 1/3)) per month for which the amount of monthly revenues of KRW 185,334 (the same shall apply hereinafter) shall be limited to 123,34 (185,00 won-(185,000 won-(1,000 x 1/3)), as the plaintiffs seek as a result of the above accident. Thus, it is clear that the above amount of damages was to be paid at the time of the accident from the date of the accident to the date of the completion of the age of 55.0% per annum 28,094,97 x 23234,294.7.244).274.

However, as seen above, the occurrence of the accident in question conflicts with the negligence of the above non-party deceased, and considering the degree of the damage caused by the loss of the non-party deceased, the defendant's compensation for damages is reasonable (28,428,475 won (28,094,917 won x 30/100).

(2) The Plaintiff 1’s active damages

In full view of the purport of the argument in the witness Lee Jong-sung’s testimony, the above plaintiff can be recognized as paying KRW 820,000 as funeral expenses of the above non-party deceased, and there is no counter-proof otherwise. Thus, the above plaintiff sought payment of KRW 800,000 among the above funeral expenses. Thus, within the above limit of the above amount, considering the degree of negligence of the non-party deceased, the amount of compensation to the above plaintiff is KRW 240,00 ( KRW 800,000 x 30/100).

(3) The consolation money for the deceased and the plaintiffs

As seen above, the above non-party deceased's death as a result of the accident on the part of this case and the plaintiffs in the above status relationship with the deceased can be recognized in light of the empirical rule that they suffered a considerable amount of mental pain. Thus, the defendant has a duty to go against this money. Furthermore, considering all circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, such as health team, the circumstance and degree of negligence of the accident, the degree of negligence, the age, property, career, status, etc. of the above non-party deceased and the plaintiffs, the above non-party's age, property, personal relation, etc., the above non-party's death amount shall be KRW 2,00,000, KRW 1,000,000, and KRW 300,000 for each of the remaining plaintiffs, respectively.

(4) Inheritance relations

The above non-party deceased suffered losses of 10,428,475 won as seen above, such as damages and consolation money, as seen above, due to the death of this accident. However, the right to compensate the defendant of the above non-party deceased was inherited in 5,214,237 won (10,428,475 won x 1/2) to the plaintiff 1 and 2, who are his parents.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 6,454,237 won (5,214,237 won + 240,000 won + 1,000 won + 6,214,237 won (5,214,237 won + 1,000,000 won) to the plaintiff 2, and 300,000 won to the remaining plaintiffs, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 18, 1986 to the date of the above accident, and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the full payment (the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages for delay under the above Special Cases Concerning Civil Procedure from the date following the date of delivery of complaint to the date of the full payment, and it is reasonable that the defendant is entitled to dispute about the existence and scope of the debt, and there is no reason to dismiss the remaining claims for damages for delay under Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yellow Jin (Presiding Judge)