In the case of an accident that occurred at a road crossing, the case of illegality by an engineer;

Unless there are special circumstances, such as when an engineer who passes through a railroad crossing with an automatic alarm device knew that the said automatic alarm device cannot function due to a malfunction, etc., he cannot be said to have a duty of care to sound the light by driving in advance (from the point where the distance is secured). Therefore, even though he/she witnessed a bus at a 100-meter front of the bus, it cannot be said that there was a negligence because he/she continued to stop the bus due to the signals of the automatic alarm machine.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da975 delivered on July 12, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 14BDu159, Decision No. 750(85)518 delivered on the summary of the decision)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Countries

Seoul Central District Court (66A7543) of the first instance court

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 481,159 won, 30,000 won per annum to the plaintiff 2, and 30,000 won per annum from August 2, 1964 to the full payment.

(3) The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

(4) The costs of lawsuit shall be five minutes through the first and second trials, and one of them shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

(5) A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (2).

The attorney of the plaintiff (Appellant) sought a declaration of provisional execution that "the original judgment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 626,630 won, 500 won per annum from August 2, 1964 to the full payment system, and the amount of 5% per annum from August 2, 1964 to the full payment system. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances."

(1) Without dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 5-7, 5-8 (Examination Record of Suspected Suspect), 17 (Examination Statement), 6-1 through 6 (Each Report), 11 (Verification Report), 4 (Judgment) and the appraisal result of non-party 1 by the appraiser of the court below at around 13:40 on August 1, 1964, when a automatic warning system was installed at a point of approximately 4 km from the net basin between Gwangju Line, Ycheon, and nuclear power station at a crossing around 13:40 on August 13:40, 1964, the fact that the above automatic warning system was installed at a point of approximately 4 km from the net basin between the defendant's towing Line, the 50-ray train at the end of the Hacheon Line, which was driven by the non-party 2 who belongs to the transportation department under the defendant's towing Line, and the 53-party 3's 40-party 10 percent of the above passenger bus's ability to leave the left.

(2) As to the principal claim

The plaintiffs' attorney at the above-mentioned crossing crossing 1 was at the front time, and the defendant had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident at the point of view. Even if the defendant was at the time of the accident, he did not have a duty of care due to the act of non-party 2, who is a public official under Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, the defendant alleged that he was responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the act of non-party 5's duty of care. Thus, the defendant did not have a duty of care due to non-party 5's negligence, 3 (Report on Occurrence), 5's 5's 16 (Verification Protocol), and 7's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 5's 10's 6's 6's 5's 5's 6's 6's 5's 5's 6's 5's 6's 5's 's 7's 's 's 's 's 's 's '4's 's 's 's 's '.

(3) As to the conjunctive claim:

The plaintiffs' attorney did not negligent due to the non-party 2's negligence on the part of the non-party 2's company's duty of care required for the above duties, and the defendant alleged that the above vehicle's accident occurred due to negligence by neglecting the automatic alarm machine's failure. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages caused by this accident. Thus, the defendant's 4 to 6 (each protocol of witness), 5-10 (each protocol of witness), 5-11, 12, 14 (each protocol of witness), 8-1 to 6 (each protocol of witness examination), 10-10 (each protocol of witness examination), 10-1 to 6 (each protocol of witness examination), and 3-11 of the above passenger crossing's testimony and the testimony of the non-party 3 are hard to recognize the damages caused by the above accident's failure in light of the fact that the point of the above accident cannot be seen to have gone against the safety warning of the vehicle's automatic bus crossing's failure.

(iv)damage;

Furthermore, it is judged that the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident.

(a)Loss of import;

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 1), 3 (Simplified Life Table), 5-11 (Protocol of Statement), 8-2 (Protocol of Examination), and testimony of non-party 3 of the original instance court without dispute over the establishment, plaintiff 1 was an ordinary health chain of 26 years of age and 10 months of age at the time of the occurrence of this case, and its survival life life life was 35.21 years of age and 5,000 won per month from March 10, 1964 and 40% of the monthly wage per annum No. 5,000 won per month from the above injury caused to the above accident and lost 40% of the working ability of 5,000 won per month, and the above plaintiff 1 was within the scope of 200,000 won per month from the above injury to 30,000 won per month from the above time of the occurrence of this case to the extent of 50,000 won per month from the point of time of 25, 30,05,000.

The amount of 431,159 won is the loss of the income that Plaintiff 1 could have obtained due to the accident.

(B) The plaintiffs' consolation money

The plaintiffs 1 are victims themselves, and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are their parents (the above Gap evidence 1) who suffered a large amount of mental pain due to the plaintiffs' above injury, and the consolation money is recognized to be reasonable for the plaintiffs 1 to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in light of all the circumstances such as the background of the accident above and the degree of the plaintiff 1's injury.

(5) Consultations

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1 the above sum of 481,159 won to the plaintiff 2 and 3 each amount of 30,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 2, 1964 to the full payment system, the day following the day following the occurrence of the accident of this case claimed by the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for this lawsuit is justified within the above limit and the remainder is just and dismissed. Since the judgment of the court below which dismissed all the above claims of the plaintiffs is unfair, it is so revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and as to the burden of litigation costs, Article 96, 93, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied to the provisional execution declaration. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 199 of the same Act to the provisional execution declaration.

Judges Park Jong-su (Presiding Judge)