2. BB

3. CCC;

4.D;

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney FFF, GG

JJJJJ of the representative director

Law Firm KK, Attorney Park Jae-soo

Attorney Z, Y, X, V, U, T, S, R

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or all or part of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 7, 8, and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3-3 through 6, witness LLL, and MM testimony, respectively, can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings.

(a) Family relationship;

피고는 ●● ♠♠군 ♥♥면 소재 ♣♣♣♣♣ 실내수영장을 소유·관리하면서 관광숙박업, 관광객 이용시설업 등을 영위하는 자이고, 원고 AAA는 위 수영장에서 아래의 사고를 당하여 상해를 입은 자이며, 원고 BBB, CCC는 원고 AAA의 부모, 원고 DDD은 원고 AAA의 누이이다.

B. On August 0, 2005, Plaintiff AA, who was attending the second grade of the university of the occurrence of the instant accident, entered the above indoor swimming pool on August 0, 2005, and obtained ice from ice on the left-hand swimming pool at around 16:00 on the same day, and suffered injury, such as a 5 gradsium and an incomplete horse expenses below the sixth gradsium, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). At the time of the instant accident, Plaintiff AA entered the above indoor swimming pool, which was owned and managed by the Defendant while running a tourist-use facility business. The indoor swimming pool, such as the circumstances at the time of the instant accident, is the left-hand swimming of the standards and the right-hand swimming of the entrance, based on the entrance.

(2) The accident of this case is comprised of 52 meters in length and 20 meters in width, and 8 meters in width, and there is a cost of departure for each railer. The depth is from 1.0m to 1.2m., and the depth is from 1.5m to 1.5m, so the risk of the accident is high.

Even if there is a kind of warning and control, users who conduct ice ice or obtain such self-defense are often often employed, and even if there is a warning and control to a certain degree, and there are no users who conduct such act.

(3) As to this, the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, set up five ice-prohibited sign signs, which read 'NO DIVING HIVE, NO or DO, and * not responsible in us in the event of an accident' at approximately 10 meters away from each starting point at the time of the instant accident. It is not likely to mislead misunderstanding to prohibit ice in the above starting point, not in the entire size pool, but in the position of the Defendant, there was a decrease in the attractive manpower of the State because ice flags together with the flag flag for public relations. In addition, if the Defendant puts a ice card with the words 'flag flag flag', which read 'flag flag flag', which read 'flag flag flag', which read 'flag flag flag flag', the Defendant did not have any responsibility to 'flag flag f flag'.

(4) In addition, the above indoor swimming pool had one safety supervisor who is Defendant employees and four safety personnel who are part-time trainees. However, safety personnel who are part-time trainees did not have the qualification for life-saving personnel. A special vote that the safety personnel who are part-time trainees did not have the qualification for life-saving personnel.

A person, who did not receive self-safety education, engaged in dangerous conduct, was trained to the scene after receiving education to the extent that he would be subject to sanctions, by failing to undergo the safety education. At the time of the instant accident, safety personnel were at the site, but did not discover it until the instant accident occurred. After the instant accident occurred, female flussium, by drawing the Plaintiff AA into the outside part of the size pool, was first discovered by one safety personnel, who was on the back of the size pool, 2 to 3 minutes after 2 to 3 minutes after leaving the Plaintiff on the outside part of the size pool, and demanded the help of the people. After that accident, the safety personnel reported 119 and sent the same Plaintiff to the hospital.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

According to the above facts of recognition, it is judged as follows.

If the accident of this case is carried out in ice or acquired from ice, the risk of the occurrence of the accident is high, and despite the fact, the users who obtain ice dice or dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dynas, even if there is a warning and control to a certain extent, are more visitors who conduct such act without opening it.

Therefore, while owning and managing the above indoor swimming pool, the defendant who is engaged in tourist-use facility business, etc., has the duty to pay attention to the users so that he/she does not perform the above acts in mind, and to make safety personnel take appropriate measures in order to prevent accidents that may occur due to the above acts of the users, by holding and managing the above indoor swimming pool.

However, it seems that the sign or flag card installed by the defendant is insufficient to attract users' attention, and it seems that the measures of safety personnel employed by the defendant were also insufficient.

After all, the defendant is negligent in failing to perform the above duty of care, and the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

B. Limitation on liability

However, the plaintiff AA is an adult who knew or could easily know that the depth of the above size pool is prohibited from ice, and therefore, it should not be acquired from ice, and even if so, it should have been negligent in promoting the safety of the plaintiff AA by making separate care so that the head part does not contact the floor, so it should have been negligent. Such mistake of the plaintiff AA is deemed to have caused the accident in this case and the expansion of damages. However, it is not the degree of exemption from the defendant's responsibility (the defendant's assertion does not accept the defendant's exemption), but it is reasonable to consider it as 85% in determining damages for the defendant, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant's liability is limited to the remaining 15% in light of the above facts, such as the situation where the accident in this case occurred, etc.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Actual income:

The actual income equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the capacity of Plaintiff AA lost due to the instant accident shall be KRW 299,428,235, calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident, based on the facts of recognition and assessment as follows: (a) based on the content of assessment and recognition as follows; and (b) the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month is deducted as follows:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(a) Gender: Male;

Date of birth: On October 0, 1982, the age of 23 years and 25 years: 42.54 (the disability of samaf, etc. following the instant accident may affect the average number of persons, thereby reducing the number of persons to 8.8 years. On the other hand, the Plaintiff AA’s life expectancy shall be deemed as 42.54 (51.34-8, 51.34) subtracting from 51.34 years to 8.8 years, a normal life expectancy, and the remaining life expectancy shall be deemed as 42.54 years (51.34-8, 204). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20348, Feb. 20, 2048>

(B) Job and actual income status: The daily wage of daily 53,090 won (Publication September 1, 2005), 55,252 won (Publication December 1, 2005), and 56,822 won (Publication September 2006) per day on the first half of the second half of 2006, since he was residing in an urban area while he completed military service. The number of monthly working days is 22 days.

(C) Ratio of residual disability and loss of labor capacity;

(1) Embry disability: Syunmaf, etc.

(2) Ratio of loss of labor ability: 100% (two parts of Mabrodrid disability assessment methods, two parts of scale, I-III-D)

(라) 가동연한 : 만 60세가 되는 때까지 [인정근거: 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제 3,5,6호증의 각 기재, 이 법원의 ▲병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과, 경험칙, 변론 전체의 취지]

(2) Calculation: as shown in the calculation of the net income in the annexed sheet.

B. The Plaintiff AA’s treatment expenses

10,176,905 won

[Grounds for Recognition: The results of inquiries into the head of this Court and the head of Do hospital].

[아래 사실의 인정 근거 : 이 법원의 ▲병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과, 경험칙, 변론 전체의 취지]

(1) Contents, periods, and recalls; and

(a) Escopic off-copic scopic scopic scopic scopics and antiscopic scopics, recovery once, 2,375,650 won;

(b)the rehabilitation department;

(1) Outgoing medical expenses: From July 0, 206 on the day following the appraisal day to July 10, 2006, 11,420 won per month, 137,040 won per annum (i.e., 11,420 won X 12 months). (2) Hospitalization expenses for the future one year from July 00, 206, which is the day following the appraisal day, shall continue to be hospitalized for the following three years, 120 days per year, 45,00 won per day, 16,200,00 won for the first three years, 5,400 won per year, 40,000 won per annum (i.e., 45,000 won), 137,000 won per annum, 120 won per annum, 200 won per annum, 208, 208, 37,57, 297, 29, 375, and 129, etc.

i) From July 00, 2006 on the day following the appraisal day to 4 years thereafter, 5 times a week, 17,405,760 won a year (i.e., 72,524 won x 5 times X x 4 x 12 months) ii), 3,481,152 won a week for 6 years thereafter (i.e., 72,524 x 12 months a week)

(4) From July 0, 2006 to 20 years from the date following the date of appraisal of the closed function test, the expenses shall be 49,634 won once a year and 49,634 won.

(C) Burinology

(1) The medication, regular inspection of outbreak of infection, urology treatment, and treatment or period of urology disorders to alleviate urology: The expenses incurred from August 00, 2006 to the end of life expectancy on the day following the date of appraisal. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19650, Aug. 1, 2006>

i) 3,157,250 won per annum [20 won per annum = 1,971,00 won + 5m x 20 times x 365) + 985,50 won per annum (i.e., BUP4 20m 2,70 X 1/day x 365) + 20,750 won per annum 200,750 won per annum (i.e., Medrac 1T 1T 50/day X365) x 30 times per annum 356,80 won per annum (i.e., 14,120 x 3,530 x 450 x 80 x 45 times per annum).

(2) Medical treatment for advance contribution;

㉮ 내용 : 음경보형물 삽입술 Q 회수 및 비용 : 1회 수술비 4,478,200원, 음경보형물비용 8,000,000 원(내구연한 10년), 최초 수술 시에는 음경보형물 비용을 부담하여야 하나 그 다음부터는 음경보형물 비용의 10%인 800,000원만 부담, 하여 최초 비용은 12,478,200원(= 4,478,200원 + 8,000,000원), 그 이후 비용은 5,278,200원(= 4,478,200원 + 800,000원) (원고들은, 발기부전치료와 관련하여 원고 AAA가 여명기간 동안 5,256회의 성행위를 하고 그 성행위를 할 때마다 발기유발제 자가주사요법에 의한 치료가 필요하다는 전제로 그 비용을 청구하고 있다. 살피건대, 이 법원의 ▲병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과에 의하면, 발기부전치료에 있어 원고들 주장의 자가주사요법에 의한 치료는 위 인정의 음경보형물삽입술과 대체적 관계에 있는 것으로 보이는 한편, 원고들 주장의 전제사실은 너무도 불확실하므로, 향후 원고 AAA가 성생활에서 감수하여야 할 불편은 위자료를 산정함에 있어 감안하기로 하고, 발기부전치료 비용은 위 음경보형물 삽입비용으로 산정한다).

(2) Calculation

(A) 2,375,650 won x 0.9022 = 2,143,311 won x 2,311 won for calculation convenience, since there is no evidence to prove that the above treatment had been conducted by the date of the closing of argument in this case.

(b)the rehabilitation department;

① Overseas medical expenses (i.e., one year and three months from the day following the appraisal date ( July 00, 2006) to the day of the closing of argument in this case) are to be disbursed at once on the day following the date of the closing of argument in this case, and they are to be disbursed every one year from the following day to October 00 (the time nine years and three months have elapsed from the day following the appraisal date) until July 0, 2015, and deemed to have been disbursed every nine months from the following day to July 00 (the time ten years have elapsed from the day following the appraisal date) 171,300 won (=1,420 x 15 months) 】 0.902 = 154,546 won x 137,040 won x 11,420 won x 11,420 x 6.36.788,746.783 + 86.75.76.74386.73

(2) Hospitalization expenses [the period of one year and three months from the day after the above appraisal date to the day of the closing of argument in this case shall be deemed to have been disbursed all once on the day following the day following the date of the closing of argument in this case, and shall be disbursed every one year from the following day to October 0 (the period of three years and three months from the day after the appraisal date) of this case, and nine months from such day until July 20, 2010 (the period of four years from the day after the appraisal date shall be deemed to have been disbursed on July 0, 201).

{16,200,000원+(5,400,000원×3/12)}×0.9022=15,833,610원 5,400,000원 × 1,6908(= 0.8633 + 0.8275) = 9,130,320원 (5,400,000원 × 9/12) × 0.8026 = | 3,250,530원 합계 28,214,460원(= 15,833,610원 + 9,130,320원 + 3,250,530원) ③ 물리치료비 {위 감정일 다음날부터 이 사건 변론종결일까지의 1년 3개월 치는 이 사건 변론종결 다음날에 한꺼번에 지출되는 것으로, 그 다음날부터 2015. 10. 00.(감정일 다음날부터 9년 3개월이 되는 때)까지는 1년마다 지출되는 것으로, 그 다음날부터 2016. 7. 00.(감정일 다음날부터 10년이 되는 때)까지의 9개월 치는 2016. 7. 00.에 지출되는 것으로 본다)

17,405,760 X (1+3/12) x 0.922 = 19,629,345 won x 17,405 won x 1.698 = 29,429,659 [(17,405,760 won x 9/12) + (3,481,152 won x 3/152) + 0.7947 III 11,065,885 won x 3,481,152 x 3.590 + 0.763 + 0.7361 + 0.73610 + 0.657.685 + 1964,2984,975 x 2984,965 x 29465) x 19645

(4) Waste skill examination [one year and three months from the day following the above appraisal day to the day of closing of argument in this case] deemed to have been disbursed at once on the day following the day of closing of argument in this case + 10.00 ＋ 205 ＋ 40 ＋ 46.0 ＋ 40 ＋ 5 ＋ 46.0 ＋ 84 ＋ 6.5 ＋ 6.46 ＋ 6.6 ＋ 7.5 ＋ 40 ＋ 6.5 ＋ 6.7.0 ＋ 46.5 ＋ 6.5 ＋ 7.05 ＋ 46.05 ＋ 6.7.05 ＋ 46.5 ＋ 16.05 ＋ 6.7.05 ＋ 97.65 ＋ 14.7.05 ＋ 6.7.05 ＋ 14.65 ＋ 16.7.04 ＋ 7.5 7.0.0

(C) Burinology

(2) From 0.0 to 0.38 6.0 + 30.0 + 47.0 + 50 + 30.0 + 47.0 + 47.0 + 46.0 + 36.0,000 won out of the above expenses on the end of 048.3 + 57.0 + 47.0 + 36.0,000 won per annum 46.36.0 + 40,000 won per annum 46.0 + 75.00 won per annum 46.00 + 75.00 won per annum 46.00 + 75.0 won per annum 46.35 won per annum

12,478,200 = 0.7407 = 9,242,602 Won 5,278,200 + 1.3168 = 0.5 + 0.4255 + 0.3508 + 16,192,935 won + 6,935 won + 6,950,333 won)

③ Partnership: 131,955,446 won (=15,762,511 won + 16,192,935 won)

(d) Expenses for auxiliary rescue equipment;

(1) Necessary auxiliary equipment

I : 800,000 won per 1, 700,000 won per 1, 5 years of life, 360,000 won per 1, 360,000 won per 3,000 won per 1, and for the prevention of public bath for 5 years of life: 40,000 won per 1, and 5 years of life.

[인정근거 : 이 법원의 ▲병원장에 대한 신체감정촉탁결과]

(2) Calculation (for the plaintiff's request, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff first purchased on August 0, 201 and purchased on August 00, 2010, five years after the date of the accident of this case).

X 4.03 + X 4.0793 + 000 + 00,000 + 700,000 + 360,000 + 400,000) + + 0.800 + 6666 + 0.666 + 0.5714 + 0.500 + 0.4440 + 0.400 + 0.4400 + 0.4400 + 36360.33) + 9,219,218 won

(e) Nursing expenses;

(1) 앞서 든 증거 및 이 법원의 ▲병원장에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고 AAA는 이 사건 사고로 인하여 생긴 사지마비 등으로 영구적인 후유장애가 남게 되어 그 노동능력을 전부 상실하였고 생명유지를 위하여 기본적인 치료가 필요하며 합병증 등을 예방하기 위하여 여명기간 동안 지속적인 경과관찰 및 검사, 이에 따른 치료가 불가피하며, 독립적 기립 및 보행, 체위변경, 대소변처리, 착탈의, 이동 등 일상생활을 하기 위하여 개호가 필요한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Furthermore, considering the degree of Plaintiff AA’s aftermath disability and the characteristics of the name, rather than that the opening person continuously does not need to do so, and the fact that Plaintiff AA’s opening is sufficient when the opening is needed intermittently, it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff A needs to open for eight hours a day for an adult male during the life period from the date of the instant accident to the date of the instant accident. Meanwhile, the daily daily wage of urban daily workers is KRW 53,090 for the second half of 2005, KRW 55,252 for the first half of 206, and KRW 56,82 for the second half of 206, as seen earlier.

(2) Calculation

It is the sum of KRW 413,982,219, as shown in the separate sheet of "Omission", when calculating by August 0, 2043, for which the plaintiffs seek as part of the life expectancy of Plaintiff AA, as of August 0, 204.

(f) Negligence offsetting;

(1) The defendant's liability ratio: 15%

(2) The amount of Plaintiff A’s property damage: 971,026,749 won (i.e., daily income of KRW 299,428,235 + KRW 10,176,905 + Gender surgery of KRW 2,143,311 + 104,121,415 for future treatment in the course of rehabilitation and future therapy + 131,95,446 + 131,95,446 + 9,219,218 + 413,93,982,219)

(3) The defendant's liability amount: 145,654,012 won (=971,026,749 won) x 15%)

(g) Consolation money (1) Grounds: The degree of the following disability of Plaintiff AA, the Plaintiffs’ family relationship, and the instant accident;

Circumstances and results, and other various circumstances shown in the argument of this case

(2) The amount determined;

Plaintiff AA: 16,500,000 won

Plaintiff BB, CCC: each 3,000,000 won

Plaintiff DD: 500,000 won

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff AA 162,154,012 (i.e., 145,654,012 won + consolation money of 16,500,000 won + consolation money of 16,500,000 won, consolation money of 50,000 won to the plaintiff DD and each of them, which is the date of the accident of this case, to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay damages from August 00, 2005 to November 00, 2007, which is the date of the decision of this case, to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and damages for delay by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-ju

Judges Park Gin-uri