2013Na10169 Compensation (as such)

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney Kim Jong-ho (Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Railroad Corporation

Attorney Cho Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Na36 decided June 5, 2013

Judgment

March 17, 2014

April 11, 2014

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the following is revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 100,000 won with 5% per annum from November 22, 2012 to April 11, 2014, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal and the defendant's appeal are dismissed, respectively.

3 The total costs of litigation shall be borne individually by each party.

4.The payment portion of paragraph 1 above may be provisionally executed.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant 10,00,000 won and a copy of the complaint of this case from November 22, 2012 to the plaintiff

The service date shall be 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

d. Payment of money:

2. Purport of appeal

Plaintiff: The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows. The Defendant shall be KRW 10,00,000, and it shall be substituted by the Plaintiff.

from November 22, 2012 to the service date of the copy of the complaint in this case, 5% per annum, and the following day.

It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

Defendant: Revocation of the part against Defendant among the judgment of the first instance, and the Plaintiff’s request corresponding to the revoked part.

The Gu is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the party

1) In moving, the Plaintiff is a person with a disability of 1st degree in brain disease with which wheel chairs should be used.

2) The Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of contributing to the development of the railroad industry and the national economy by enhancing the expertise and efficiency of projects for railroad operation under the Korea Railroad Corporation Act, which carries out a railroad passenger business, a railroad station operation business, etc.

B. On November 21, 2012, at around 21:10, the Plaintiff: (a) boarded the train at KTX-179 with the help of public interest personnel belonging to the Defendant, and arrived at around 21:47 in the astronomical and Asan Station; (b) the employee belonging to the Defendant was unable to contact in advance to the person in charge of the astronomical and Asan Station; and (c) the said train crew ○○○, etc. did not wait at the platform. The said train crew ○○, etc. was getting off the Plaintiff from the train at around 3:53:47 around that time, the said train was waiting for contact with the Plaintiff at △△△△△△△△△△△△△ at around that time.

C. The plaintiff 21: 54 : 08 08 : The telephone call time was about 23 : 21 : 55 : 22 : The telephone call time is about 6 seconds.

D. Dogsung, which is the reason for the service of the Dogsan and the Agsan Station, had been instructed from △△△△ to inform the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff is waiting for at the 3th platform, and △△△ Party instructed the Plaintiff to the service room, and the time of movement from the platform No. 3 to the service room is about 2-3 minutes.

E. At around 21:54, the accident wage table prepared by the head of the team for the services in the Yanananan and the Agsan Station: Around 21:54, the OO contacted △△△ to the Plaintiff on the platform that there was a disabled person. At around 21:54, △△△△△△△ instructed △△ to the platform, △△△△, at around 21:55, arrived at the platform at around 21:5, and △△△△△△ was directed the Plaintiff to the service room at around 22:30, and at around 22:30, the Plaintiff returned to the Plaintiff, and there was no notification on the request for guidance at the guidance in the Seoul Station.

F. Meanwhile, among the Defendant’s reverse work manuals, the Defendant’s reverse work manuals include the following:

A person shall be appointed.

G. Of the Defendant’s reverse operation systems, the fact that the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) was disabled persons, and the Plaintiff’s departure station, train, seat, time of arrival, arrival time, and the name column of the Plaintiff’s objection is written as a set.

H. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant asserted in the first instance trial proceedings that “the Plaintiff’s written brief submitted on April 18, 2013,” stating, “The Plaintiff’s work was conducted from the point of operation of KTX to the point of arrival at the time of the disabled person’s getting on and off the wheelchairs, and the Plaintiff made efforts to ensure that the Defendant’s service personnel did not face the disabled person’s passengers, as in the instant case, once more than once during a few years, in the calendar where the train arrived.”

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, witness of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Around 21:47, the above train arrived at 21:47, and 21:47, when ○○○ et al. disembarked the Plaintiff on the platform, and arrived at the platform at around 22:10, and the Plaintiff arrived at the station platform at around 22:15. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was left blank in fear in leaving the station as to whether the Plaintiff arrived at the service room after getting out of the train. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered mental damage due to negligence by the Defendant’s failure to guide the disabled person according to the calendar manual, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay damages on its part.

B. The defendant's assertion

The above train arrived at the Acheon and Asan Station, and ○○○ et al. set off the Plaintiff on the platform at around 21:53: 47. 21:55. The time when the Plaintiff arrived at the platform is around 21:55, and the time when the Plaintiff arrived at the station is around 21:59. Thus, the time when the Plaintiff arrived at the station is about KRW 21:59. The time when the Plaintiff arrived at the station is about KRW 2-5 minutes. The Defendant’s failure to comply with the reverse business manual is the vehicle for the provision of services for the disabled passengers. Thus, the failure to comply with the requirements for establishment cannot be deemed as a tort.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) From the above facts, it is reasonable to view that ○○○ was wirelessly informed △△△△△ to the Plaintiff on the platform at about 21:54, the following circumstances known to the above facts, i.e.,, e.,, 21:5: the Plaintiff appears to have arrived at the platform at around 21:5:54: the Plaintiff appears to have received the direction of △△△△△△△△△△△, and the Plaintiff also claimed to have approximately 2-3 minutes of the platform from the station platform to the station platform, and approximately 5 minutes of the time the Plaintiff moved from the station platform to the station platform at about 5:5:5:21:54:3:4:5:4, the Plaintiff appears to have arrived from the station platform at about 25:50,000,000, and it appears that the Plaintiff did not start from the station platform at about 25:1:54,000,000,000.

2) The Defendant’s guidelines for leisure services, station work manuals, etc. stipulate that the person in charge of the disabled in advance at the time of boarding and leaving the wheelchairs shall help the person in charge of the disabled in waiting and leaving the platforms. Even according to the Defendant’s station system, it appears that the Defendant might have known the fact that the Plaintiff was disabled persons in need of lifts, such as the number of the train on board, seat, scheduled time of arrival, and scheduled time of arrival. In order to get off and get off the wheelchairs on the trains, it seems practically impossible to get off and get off the wheelchairs alone with the disabled, and the purpose of the provision of the Act is that the Plaintiff’s act of using the wheelchairs in advance at the time of leaving the wheelchairs constitutes an act of using the wheelchairs at least one-lane for the disabled in order to ensure the smooth boarding and leaving off of the wheelchairs, and it is also necessary to give notice of the vehicle operation of the disabled in advance, such as the vehicle’s operating manual, and to take into account the need to inform the disabled person of the vehicle and its operating operation alone.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant is liable to compensate for the tort committed by the employees of the Defendant who caused the instant accident by negligence, despite the Plaintiff’s duty of care as above, as seen earlier.

B. Scope of liability for damages

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., the time of the accident was about five minutes, but at the same time, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff suffered mental loss due to the plaintiff's breach of duty of care in light of the fact that the time of the accident was at the same time, and that if a disabled person who is unable to move without a wheelchairs left the platform without a wheelchairs, even if it was short time, the suffering may be considerably high. Therefore, the defendant has a duty to compensate for mental loss suffered by the plaintiff. Therefore, in calculating the amount, the plaintiff is also deemed to have been able to prevent the accident of this case if the plaintiff confirmed that he was waiting for the platform through the train crew, etc. while the accident of this case occurred, and that the plaintiff could promptly guide the plaintiff as the defendant's office and provide the plaintiff with convenient convenience and safe returning to the plaintiff, taking into account the circumstance and the result of the accident of this case 00 and all other circumstances as the result of this case's pleading.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, with respect to KRW 600,00, and KRW 500, which is the part cited by the judgment of the court of first instance among the plaintiff, after the date of the accident in this case, the defendant raised an objection as to the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 22, 2012, which is the date of the judgment of first instance, until June 5, 2013, which is the date of the decision of first instance, to the date of full payment. The damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Since the defendant's appeal as to KRW 10,00, which is the part ordering additional payment at the court of first instance, and the remaining portion of the judgment of first instance as to the defendant's remaining portion of the appeal shall be dismissed within 20% per annum from the date of occurrence of the accident in this case to November 222, 2012.

The presiding judge shall have jurisdiction over the transmission of leather

Judges Lee Jae-soo

Judges Kang Young-young