It is the defect of the so-called structure that the 3 types of facilities are installed at the crossing crossing where the 1 type of facilities shall be installed.

The regulations on the placement and installation of surveillance stations are required to install the Class 1 facilities only with a stop indication which is the Class 3 facilities and automatic alarm devices, and in the event of an accident, they are liable for damages due to defects of structures.

Article 758 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1507 delivered on March 25, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant shall be examined.

According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the court below acknowledged that the point of accident at issue was a road crossing with approximately 80 meters in width on the right side, and it cannot be seen that there was an accident where the transit vehicle about about 50 to 60 meters occurred at one hour, and that the defendant was a Class 1 road crossing under the Rules on the Installation of Transboundary and Monitoring Station (No. 3482 of June 1, 1963), which was in force at the time of the accident, but the defendant was equipped with only a Class 3 facility, a stop indication and an automatic alarm, and did not have a facility as provided for in the first class 1 road crossing. The judgment of the court below was based on the purport that the point of accident at issue was a road crossing with the facilities as provided for in the above Rules at the time of the accident, and the court below did not err by examining the evidence cited by the original judgment based on the records.

The court below's decision in the appeal to the effect that the crossing was erroneous from the date of promulgation of the rules on the installation of a guard room and the posting of a guard room and the fact that the crossing was erroneous as provided for in the Class 1, cannot be accepted because it erred by misapprehending the original judgment or failing to confirm the legitimate fact of the court below

According to the reasoning of the second instance judgment, the non-party who died in the present accident did not recognize that he was negligent in failing to pay due attention to the present accident, and even if the non-party who was on the part of the non-party's driver was on the part of the driver, the non-party who was on the part of the non-party's driver was on the part of the driver cannot be said to have a legal duty of care to call attention to the driver when crossing the dangerous railway path, or to take into account the front and rear left, and thus, it cannot be said that the non-party was at fault in the lawsuit on the part of the non-party, and that the court below did not recognize the fault of the victim in this case and did not offset the amount of damages. There is no illegality in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below on the contrary of this opinion.

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

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court