Even if a luminous part engaged in simple labor has a duty of care to take preventive measures in advance, and if the luminous part does not take such measures, the luminous part is negligent.

Even if a worker is engaged in simple labor, if there is a need for a security facility and if it is possible to make a simple prevention facility, it is reasonable to work after such prevention and placement. Therefore, if the placement is not taken, the worker is at fault on the part of the worker.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Korea Coal Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1344 delivered on October 30, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1344 delivered on October 30, 1970

Of the part against the defendant in the original judgment, the part concerning the property damage of the plaintiff Kim Jong-ho (the part ordering the payment of KRW 2,000,000 and the natural damage therefrom) shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal as to the part against the defendant excluding the above part among the part against the defendant, and the appeal by the plaintiff Kim Jong-ho are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the plaintiff Kim J-ho are assessed against the plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the defendant against the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff Kim J-ho are assessed against the defendant.

First, we examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff Kim head-ho attorney.

With respect to No. 1:

Even if a mine is engaged in simple labor in a mine, if it is deemed dangerous if the place of his/her work is deemed to be in danger unless a security facility is installed, it is reasonable to have a security officer take measures to prevent danger or to simply take measures to prevent danger, and if an accident occurs as a result of the relationship of work without taking such measures (in competition with the negligence of a security officer, etc.), it is reasonable to take into account the above negligence of the mining department in calculating the amount of damages incurred to the mining department. It is not necessary to consider the above negligence of the mining department in calculating the amount of damages. Accordingly, the court below's view that the mining part is engaged in simple labor and there is no facility liability for security measures, and it is just to recognize the negligence that has not taken safety measures in advance, and to offset it by the original part, and it is not recognized that the court below unfairly comparative negligence even after examining the original judgment.

In the original judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, it is clear that the plaintiff Kim-ho was negligent in performing the above-mentioned work for the sake of his safety, and even if there was a duty of care to do work, the plaintiff Kim-ho was negligent in taking safety measures, such as the plaintiff Kim-ho's explanation at the court of first instance. Thus, it does not seem that there was an error of law such as lack of reason or incomplete deliberation, such as the plaintiff Kim-ho's argument. The argument is groundless.

Next, we examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court of first instance recognized the fact that the plaintiff Kim So-young was born on July 21, 1935 and that the accident occurred on August 21, 1969, and recognized that the above plaintiff's age at the time of the accident was 33 years of age and that male at the age of 60 is able to survive until the age of 60, and on the premise that there was no accident, it was 5 years of age from August 22, 1969 to 53 years of age, and on the premise that the defendant's damage was suffered during the above period of 0 years of age as a mining father belonging to the defendant at the time of the accident, the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance was 0 years of age and 19 years of age as to the plaintiff's property damage was 10 years of age and 3 years of age of 19 years of age of 19 years of age of 19.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court of Korea (Presiding Judge) shall be the red net shots and the white shots