Passenger transport service providers shall be held liable only for damages sustained by passengers due to matters falling under the scope of their duties of care.

Passenger transport service providers are liable only for damages sustained by passengers due to matters falling under the scope of their duties of care.

Article 148 of the Commercial Act

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2764 delivered on May 2, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 68Na2764 delivered on May 2, 1969

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

The provisions of Article 148 of the Commercial Act concerning the liability for damages of passengers on the premise that the passenger was damaged by the carriage while the carriage was conducted, and that the damage was caused by the matters within the scope of the obligation of due care concerning the carriage by his employees, the carrier only stated that the carrier cannot be exempted from the liability for compensation unless he proves that the carrier did not exercise due care concerning the carriage by himself and his employees, and that the damage suffered by the passenger during the carriage was clearly made clear that the damage was not attributable to the carrier, regardless of the cause, and that it was not attributable to the carrier.

In addition, according to the original judgment, the court below determined that the plaintiffs' ground for appeal was the same as that of the plaintiffs (the plaintiff 1 was on April 6, 1967 and around 19:55, the plaintiff 1 was on board the 509 train in Seoul, and passed between the river station and the west station, and caused injury as stated in its reasoning because the plaintiff 1 was on the window of the train's window at the Han River basin. Even if the defendant caused damages to the plaintiff 1 who was the passenger transporting as the above train, it cannot be said that the cause of the accident was of the nature to have caused the defendant's liability under Article 148 of the Commercial Act to be borne by the defendant who was the carrier, and it is clear that it was not caused by negligence of the defendant's or his employee's duty to pay attention to the transportation of the plaintiff as the carrier, and it was not clear that the defendant's ground for appeal that the above accident was against the latter part of the Commercial Act's liability to prevent such an accident, such as the defendant's 14th reason for the above.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Na-dong, Ma-dong, and Ma-won Park Jae-won