Drowned While Horsing Around Without a Life Jacket—Facility Held 25% Liable

By Juwon Kang, September 4, 2026

Factual Background

A, a 27-year-old male gym trainer in Daegu, went with coworkers to a wakeboarding facility in July 2021 around 10 a.m. At the dock, the gym’s owner and the group were horsing around near the edge of a wooden deck. A was pushed into the water by the gym owner and drowned. The defendants had already received a final criminal conviction for professional negligence resulting in death, having failed to fulfill their duty under the Water-based Leisure Safety Act to require facility users to wear life jackets or to keep those without life jackets away from the water.

A’s parents subsequently filed a civil suit against the wakeboarding company’s general manager and in-house director, seeking damages.

Court Decision

The Daegu District Court’s Seobu Branch, Civil Division 18 (Single Judge), presided over by Presiding Judge Song Hyo-seop, ruled on May 22 that the defendants must jointly pay approximately 171 million won to A’s parents. The court recognized the defendants’ liability but limited it to 25%, taking into account A’s own negligence.

Legal Reasoning

Judge Song cited several factors in limiting liability to 25%: A was not wearing a life jacket and the accident occurred while he himself was engaged in pushing others into the water as a prank; after he fell in, rescue was delayed because bystanders mistook his struggling for continued horseplay; a no-swimming sign had been posted at the site; and as an adult, A bore his own duty of care. In calculating damages, the court included A’s lost future income, funeral expenses of 5 million won, and consolation money—2,400,000 won for A himself and 5,000,000 won each for his parents.

Why This Matters

The ruling illustrates how Korean courts apportion liability between facility operators and victims in recreational water-safety accidents, even where operators have already been criminally convicted for safety violations. Practitioners handling similar leisure-facility injury or wrongful death claims should note that a plaintiff’s own risky conduct—including reciprocal horseplay—can substantially reduce recoverable damages, and that circumstances affecting rescue timing (such as bystanders misreading a victim’s distress as play) may factor into comparative fault analysis. The case also underscores that a prior criminal conviction for the same underlying conduct does not translate into full civil liability; courts conduct an independent comparative negligence assessment in the civil damages context.

Article: https://www.lawtimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=222786&page=2&total=25200