Whether a contract of carriage continues to exist in the passenger section;

In principle, a passenger transport contract by railroad shall continue to exist between the starting station and the arrival station indicated in the boarding pass. However, in the case of a passenger’s so-called passenger transport contract due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, even if the procedures such as extension of the contract are not taken, it shall be exceptionally deemed that the transport contract remains in force in the passenger transport contract even in the boarding section, and an accident after the boarding has occurred during the continuous period of the passenger transport contract.

Article 148 of the Commercial Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Justice's legal representative of the country's law and the number of stuffed litigation performers

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na76 delivered on April 23, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

In principle, a passenger transport contract by railroad shall continue to exist between the starting station and the arrival station indicated in the boarding passes. However, in the case of a passenger’s month for which the passengers are entirely responsible, even if the procedures such as extension of the contract are not taken, it is reasonable to view that the transport contract continues to exist in the passenger section as it is, in exceptional cases.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not appear to have judged on the deceased non-party's issue of the deceased non-party who died of the accident of this case, but it did not appear to be the above purport.

In other words, the deceased was trying to set off his vehicle at the destination station, which is indicated on the boarding pass, and the stop time is about 30 seconds, and the accident day is about 30 seconds, which was the first day of the accident, and was falling down at the bottom of the entrance and exit, and the country, which is the carrier, cannot be deemed to have paid due attention to prevent the above accident, is obvious by the facts and evidence accepted. Thus, it is reasonable that the accident that occurred after the boarding cannot be attributable only to the deceased, and therefore, the above passenger transport contract was continued during the passenger transport contract, and the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the railroad passenger transport contract.

Although the court below acknowledged that there was negligence on the deceased as mentioned in the debate, it does not appear to exempt the liability of the defendant country as a whole, because it is merely a reason to consider for calculating the amount of damages, and it does not seem to be enough to exempt the liability of the defendant country. Therefore, it is reasonable to recognize the court below as well and there

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

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)