Suwon-si

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

Suwon-si

2. A;

Seoul

Representative Director;

Defendant 1 and 2 Law Firm Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

3. B

Chicago-si

Representative Director;

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall jointly pay to the Plaintiff 220, 870, 100, 000, 000, and 00 won out of the amount set forth in paragraph (1) to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from July 15, 2015 to October 17, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. The plaintiff, defendant leap ①, and 1/3 of the litigation costs incurred between the plaintiff, defendant leap ①, and the others are borne by the plaintiff, defendant leap ①, and the joint stock company B, and 2/3 of the litigation costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant corporation A are borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant corporation A.

5. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article may be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the party

1) Defendant B (hereinafter only referred to as Defendant B) is a corporation that operates “D (hereinafter referred to as “instant golf course”) located in the city of tolerance-si.”

2) Defendant 1 ① In the instant golf course, Defendant 2 suffered injury to the Plaintiff while doing golf at the instant golf course.

3) Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”) is an insurer who entered into a special agreement with Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant A”) on the condition that the term of the contract with Defendant PapA is from December 20, 2012 to December 20, 2006, and that the term of the contract shall be from December 20, 2012 to December 20, 2006, and Defendant PapA bears the responsibility to compensate for the physical disability or property damage of another person due to a remote accident that occurred during this daily life.

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

피고 윤①①은 2015 . 7 . 15 . 19 : 00경 이 사건 골프장 1번 홀에서 티샷을 하였는 데 , 피고 윤①①이 친 골프공이 목표 방향보다 오른쪽으로 크게 휘어 날아가 이 사건 골프장 7번 홀 그린에서 퍼팅을 준비 중이던 원고의 왼쪽 눈을 타격하였다 ( 이하 ' 이 사 건 사고 ' 라 한다 ) .

C. The plaintiff's injury

The Plaintiff suffered injury due to the instant accident, such as a blood sacity in the context of the bank, the sacity, etc.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers) 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The part of the claim against the defendant B

If a golf club operator is likely to inflict an injury on a matcher with a game in one hole because the hole of a golf course is narrow or adjacent, he/she shall install safety facilities, such as pents or safety net, so that athletes can safely conduct a golf game. If an accident is likely to occur despite such measures, the operator of the golf course is obliged to establish safety facilities, such as pents or safety net, so that athletes can safely conduct a golf game. If an accident is likely to occur, safety personnel for management and supervision, or guide the matcher to ensure safety by checking the situation of neighboring holes when he/she implements a tool.

In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant B’s negligence of neglecting the duty to manage and supervise the instant golf course’s safety as an operator of the golf course, and thus, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant B is liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

① The instant golf course is comprised of three golf courses with a small scale and the distance between holes and holes is narrow compared to that of ordinary golf courses, so there is a high possibility that the instant golf course might mislead another person into a neighboring hole.

② Safety facilities, which were neglected by the instant accident No. 1 and No. 7, are limited to the rare landscape trees, and thus, it seems that the misstrush will easily threaten the safety of other competitors due to the fault adjacent to the instant accident.

③ In the instant golf course, the instant golf course is inevitably used by sports players with relatively low usage fees (no restriction is imposed on the use of initial athletes). It seems that the risks of safety are higher than that of the instant golf course.

④ In the instant golf course, there is no sports assistant, and the notice on the back side of the right to use the golf course issued to the users is limited to the instant golf course, which is a behavior that causes inconvenience to other users, and the relevant business establishment is not responsible for accidents that occur at the time of use, and there is no provision that demands safety attention, such as demanding the head of the other party to take into account the adjacent negligence.

B. The part of the claim against Defendant A ① or Defendant A

A person participating in a private sports, such as golf, has a duty of care to observe the sports rules and prevent the result of an injury by examining around his/her conduct (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6940, Oct. 23, 2008). As such, a player who participates in a private sports, such as golf, has a duty of care to ensure that he/she is waiting for moving to a safe place or to leave in a safe direction, including cases where he/she leaves a public room before leaving a place, and then has a duty of care to move to a safe direction, in light of his/her skills.

Defendant 1’s golf course is as follows. The fact that Defendant 1’s golf course was damaged by breaking the Plaintiff’s left eye is recognized. In other words, Defendant 1’s golf course is likely to proceed in the direction that is not intended to raise an objection because Defendant 1 did not have a golf career at the time of the instant accident. Defendant 1 could have sufficiently known this point. Defendant 1’s golf course in this case is operated with relatively low usage fees and without the help or advice of the game assistant. ② The golf course in this case must be operated with a view to safety. In light of the size of the golf course in this case and Defendant 1’s golf course in this case, and the distance from this case’s distance to that of the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 appears to have violated the Plaintiff’s duty of due care. In full view of the above, Defendant 1’s negligence appears to have been committed as Defendant 1’s neighboring match.

Therefore, Defendant 1(A) is liable to compensate for the damage from the high-priced damage caused by the instant accident caused by the said negligence, and Defendant 1 is liable to compensate the Plaintiff’s damage within the limit of KRW 100 million, as the insurer of Defendant 1(s).

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, Defendant B and Defendant A are jointly and severally liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as a joint tortfeasor, and Defendant A is jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiff’s damages up to KRW 100 million.

3. Whether to limit liability;

The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ liability for damages should be limited since they were negligent in breach of the duty of care to examine the surrounding conditions at the time of the game. Thus, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ liability for damages should be limited. Thus, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff, located in the golf 7 No. 7 of the instant golf 1, who had been living alone, had been aware or could have been aware of the fact that Defendant 1 attempted to shoot a golf machine, and that at the time, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected.

4. Scope of liability for damages

(a) passive damages;

1) Personal information and details of the evaluation;

A) Gender and date of birth: male, male, 1972*.* *. birth

B) The age at the time of the accident:** the year** month* * the day.

C) The end date of operation: February 17, 2032 at the age of 60;

(d) occupation and income;

Since a wage income earner who dies or is physically disabled due to a tort refers to the amount of loss of income that can be earned in the future or reduced amount of labor ability, if an employer continuously and periodically pays money and valuables for work, the name or the basis for payment shall be included, regardless of whether it is specified in the wage regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da77293, Jun. 14, 2012, etc.).

The statements in the Evidence Nos. 4, 8, and 9-1, 2-1, 2-1, and 600,000 won per month can be acknowledged as having been employed in E Company at the time of the instant accident, and the fact that the Plaintiff continued to receive 6 million won per month in 2014 and 2015. Thus, the Plaintiff’s income during the said period is considered as KRW 6 million per month.

E) The degree of loss of labor ability: To recognize 24% by integrating the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the commission of physical appraisal to the president of K University ○○ Hospital in this Court

2) Calculation

208, 368, 144 won [ = 24% per month labor capacity loss rate of 6 million won x 149 months x 7001 on 144 ]

3) The Plaintiff asserted that the monthly income amount of the Plaintiff is KRW 6,825,00,00. However, with respect to the portion exceeding the above recognition amount, each description of evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 10 (including each number) is insufficient to determine it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(b) aggressive damages;

1) Medical expenses, etc.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 10-10 and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff paid medical expenses of KRW 1,605,760 in relation to the injury suffered by the accident of this case.

2) The purchase cost of a horse;

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 6 and the whole pleadings, it is determined that the plaintiff incurred KRW 222,00 to newly purchase the accident of this case due to the destruction of the grat grat grat gral worn by the plaintiff at the time.

3) Future medical treatment costs

According to the result of the physical appraisal entrustment to the K University ○○ Hospital Head and the result of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff needs to conduct anti-scopic regrative regratives and pain treatment, and the cost is presumed to be KRW 7,50,000. However, there is no proof that the Plaintiff actually spent the above medical expenses before the date of the closing of the argument in this case. Thus, the calculation of the present amount is 674,100 won (No. 89888) on October 18, 2017, which is the day following the date of the closing of argument in the account’s convenience, if the present amount is calculated on the basis that the Plaintiff was conducted on October 18, 2017.

(c) consolation money;

In consideration of the circumstances of the accident in this case, the degree of injury and disability caused by the plaintiff's accident in this case, the original intention age, family relationship, and all other circumstances shown in the pleading, consolation money shall be determined in twenty million won.

(d) Mutual aid:

On September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million in relation to the instant accident from W Co., Ltd., the insurer of Defendant B, and there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, the said amount shall be deducted.

E. Sub-committee

Defendant A Co., Ltd. in collaboration with Defendant A ①, and KRW 220,870, and KRW 004 [ = passive damages = KRW 208, 368, 144 + positive damages + KRW 2,501, and KRW 860 + solatium KRW 20,000,000 + KRW 10,000,000, and Defendant A’s each of the above amounts jointly with Defendant A and each of them, which is the date on which the instant death occurred, is disputed as to the scope of the Defendants’ obligations to perform.

Until October 17, 2017, which is the date of this decision that is recognized as having been given, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin-hun

Judges Kim Jong-soo