Daejeon Yusung-gu

Gu like the place of service

Daejeon Yusung-gu

Joint Representative Director Professor, Gangwon-gu

Attorney Park Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,049,140 won with 5% interest per annum from March 18, 2008 to February 19, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. The 10% of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 90% by the Defendant, respectively.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,200,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the original copy of the claim and the copy of the cause modification of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. On August 28, 2007, at around 14:10, the Plaintiff driven a car with the 31st century (hereinafter referred to as “victimd vehicle”) owned by the Plaintiff, and proceeded with the same academic room near the Yongwon located in the Daejeon Pungdong-gu. On the other hand, the Plaintiff suffered an accident where a golf hole, which customer △△△ located outside of the golf course, was faced with a glass window behind the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”), and the said accident inflicted an injury on the bones, tension, etc. of the bones due to the said accident, and was damaged by the glass window of the damaged vehicle.

B. The above golf course is located adjacent to the eight-lane road in which the instant accident occurred as the place operated by the Defendant, and is installed only with an adequate height between roads and golf courses, and the same type of accident as the instant accident occurs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, Gap 4-1 to 4, the purpose of the whole pleading, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, the defendant who operates the above golf course has to install sufficient fences between the road in which the accident of this case occurred and the golf course users are not out of the golf course, despite the fact that the golf course users are not out of the golf course, there is negligence not taking such appropriate measures.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for all damages incurred by the instant accident.

(b) Scope of damages;

1) Positive damages

According to the statements in Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 5, and Gap evidence 7-1 through 3, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff paid KRW 236,610 with the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, KRW 396,30 with the rental fee of other vehicles during the repair period (three days), KRW 116,200 with the medical expenses ( KRW 19,100 + + KRW 26,800 + KRW 70,300).

2) Consolation money

Considering the Plaintiff’s age, the details and result of the instant accident, the injury part and degree, and other circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, it is reasonable to determine 300,000 won.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,049,140 won (property damage 7,49,140 won + consolation money 300,000 won) as compensation for damages caused by the accident of this case and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 18, 2008 to February 19, 2009, which is the day following the day when the copy of the application for the purpose of the claim of this case and the modification of the cause of this case is served, as sought by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed for lack of merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant who accepted part of the defendant's appeal and ordered payment in excess of the above cited money shall be revoked and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed for lack of merit. It is so decided as per

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges Lee Jin