Plaintiffs’ Address Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 000

[Defendant-Appellant]

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-dong 000

Representative President 000

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. A stock company of 000;

Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 000

Representative Director 000

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

2 Of 5,00,000, 3, and 4 each of the above amounts, 2,000, 000 won and each of the above amounts

From July 31, 2004 to the rendering of a judgment in the first instance, 5% per annum, and the date of full payment from the next day to the full payment.

up to 20% of the annual interest rate shall be paid.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, 89, Eul evidence 1, and testimony of 000 witness of the first instance trial.

A. On July 31, 2004: from 00 to 00, Plaintiff 1 was operating by Defendant 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). From 15:50 to 150, when he was operating the ice in a visual direction in accordance with the safety rules, the Plaintiff 1 conflict with a child who could not know the identity of having ices on the opposite side to Plaintiff 1, and suffered an emission frame of No. 2 of the Hawk by putting the child, and then go beyond her direction (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).

B. Plaintiff 2 is Plaintiff 1’s wife, and Plaintiff 3 and 4 are Plaintiff 1’s children.

C. Defendant 1, as a sports facility operator managing and operating the instant ice rink, is entitled to receive compensation within the limit of KRW 100 million per accident, for losses sustained by Defendant 1 due to his physical disability caused by his/her performance of his/her duties according to his/her use, and the insurance period from October 25, 2003 to October 10, 2004.

24. The term "a responsible insurance contract" was concluded.

2. The assertion and determination as to Defendant 1

A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion (1) Defendant 1, a person holding and operating the ice rink in this case, must maintain the ice in a state suitable for the ice rink to ensure the safety of users, and the ice rink is to be managed so that people in the ice rink can proceed in a certain direction without any ice or game. (2) At the time of the accident, there was a place where the ice rink in the ice rink in this case remains after ice rink and it was difficult for the ice rink in this case to take place (hereinafter "the ice 1").

② On the day of the instant accident, the end of the school year, and children did not place the necessary safety facilities or safety personnel in spite of the risk of the collision, when children play in the main game while playing in the instant ice rink and playing in the opposite direction to the scam. (hereinafter “the point of No. 2”).

③ Even if the safety personnel were assigned at the time of the instant accident, the safety personnel placed neglected the aforementioned reverse conduct and neglected the duty of care for safety management (hereinafter referred to as “third point”). Due to the conflict between the children committed by Plaintiff 1 and his family members, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for property and mental damage, as the other Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4, who are the Plaintiff 1 and his family members, were the owner of the instant ice rink or the safety personnel at the instant ice rink, and thus, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate for the structure liability under Article 758 of the Civil Act or Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination

(1) Liability under Article 758 of the Civil Act

Article 758(1) of the Civil Act provides that a structure is in a state of failing to meet safety requirements ordinarily required according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the standard should be whether the installer or keeper of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure. Thus, even if an accident occurred from a structure, unless there are special circumstances, if the accident occurred as a result of an exceptional behavior not in compliance with the ordinary usage of the structure, it cannot be said that the installer or keeper of the structure has a duty to take protective measures to prepare for such accident (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da21053, Jan. 26, 2006). Examining this case in accordance with the above legal principles, the head of the instant ice site is likely to cause ice to an area where many people use the structure together, or to cause a conflict with another person in terms of social norms, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it naturally causes a conflict with the construction of the structure.

Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness 00 of the first instance court, which seems to be consistent with the above facts concerning the 1 and 2 of the plaintiffs, is insufficient to recognize them, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, according to the testimony of the witness 1, 2, 7, 9, 13, 15 of the evidence 1 and witness 2 of the first instance court, the above testimony of the witness 00 of the first instance court, and the statement and image of the evidence 2, 19, and 20-1 to 15 of the evidence 1, 2, 2, and 15 of the above evidence 2, the above testimony of the defendant 5 of the above case was made only once more than 2 hours, and the defendant 2 of the above 14:50 to 150 of the above case's ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice, which had been in the direction of the plaintiff 1 and the above ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice.

Since the safety personnel of the ice rink of this case, who are Defendant 1’s employees, violated the duty of care as shown in the third point, Defendant 1, as his employer, was the employer, and the accident of this case under the Civil Act occurred in the ice rink of this case with children whose identity could not be known. At the time of the accident of this case with the fixed number of 500 employees, there were 40 to 50 users at the time of the accident of this case, but Defendant 1’s employees, as the safety personnel of the ice rink of this case, were conducting safety management while looking at the ice rink of this case on the second floor above, since there was no evidence to prove that the above safety personnel could have predicted the accident due to the ice rink of this case in advance, the above safety personnel did not have any duty of care to the extent ordinarily required in light of the situation of the ice rink of this case, and there was no reason to believe that the above safety personnel did not have any different duty of care.

(3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, even if Plaintiff 1 conflicts with Defendant 1’s children at the time of the instant accident, the defect in the installation and preservation of the instant ice rink cannot be recognized, and as long as it cannot be acknowledged that Defendant 1’s employees violated the safety management duty, safety personnel’s duty of care, unlike the safety rules of the instant ice rink, the Defendant 1 cannot be held liable for the accident due to the calendar that occurred unexpectedly.

3. The assertion and determination as to Defendant 2

A. The plaintiffs filed a claim against Defendant 2, the insurer, on the premise that Defendant 1 is liable for damages against the plaintiffs under Article 758 of the Civil Act or Article 756 of the Civil Act. However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 did not bear the liability for damages against the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant 2 is without merit.

(A) The Minister of Culture and Tourism asserts that, in order to compensate for damage caused by the establishment and operation of the relevant sports facilities or the relevant sports facilities, the sports facility business entity must buy an insurance under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The sports facility business entity is obliged to buy an insurance policy for the sports facility business entity as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and that, in the event of a violation of Article 44(1)4 of the same Act, Defendant 1 does not have legal liability against the Plaintiffs, Defendant 2 should

However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 (insurance Clause), defendant 2 can be acknowledged that the defendant 1 bears legal liability, such as the injury to another person's body, due to an unexpected accident that occurred in the course of performing his duties according to the sports facilities and the use of the facilities. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is clearly contrary to the language and text of the above evidence No. 1.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judges Woo-ok