2

3

Cheongbuk-gu Audio Group

4. D;

Plaintiff 1, 2, and 4 are permitted to address

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Suwon-si

(2) the representative;

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. Each of the remaining claims against the Defendant A, C, and D is dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Relationship between the Parties

The defendant is the owner and manager of the Malele installed inside the shock historical park, and the plaintiff A is the person who suffered injury after being left the Malelelelele, while the plaintiff B is the spouse of the plaintiff, the plaintiff C, and the plaintiff A are the children of the plaintiff.

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

On October 26, 2013, 15: 00 to 16: At least 00, Plaintiff A suffered from mental disorders, such as 'the instant accident point' (hereinafter referred to as 'the instant accident point') with approximately one meter away from India, among the green areas located at the bottom of a shock history park located in the north-dong area at a small river at a level of hydrogen at KRW 00,000, and 4 meters in depth located at that place (hereinafter referred to as 'the instant accident point') at the north-west side of the road, falling down with the entrance door, falling down, falling down with the mouth of the plerath, Habusan, Habro, Habre, neuta, neutathy, external stress, external stresse damage, brain injury, cerebr, cerebral injury, and physical injury caused by the instant accident' (hereinafter referred to as 'the instant mental disorder').

C. The current status of Mandole before and after the instant accident

1) At the time of the instant accident, the steel net was installed only on the upper part of the instant manle at the time of the instant accident, and it was completely opened without any facilities installed at the entrance to the north-west (the “current status of the Manle installed before the instant accident”), and only the lower level of the official title was planted under the boundary line with the India at the point around the instant accident.

2) At the time of the instant accident, no entry control facilities or notice was provided at all at the location of the instant accident.

3) After the instant accident, the Defendant installed a steel net at the north-west side of the instant Manle at the entrance of the side, and additionally planted the landscape trees of 1m height on the right side of the instant Manle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap's statements or images (which include numbered numbers) in Gap's evidence 1, 17, 26 through 30, Eul's statements in Eul's evidence 2, Eul's examination result in the party's main question against plaintiff A, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

“Defects in the installation and preservation of a structure” under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, the determination shall be based on whether the installer and custodian 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. If the facility is inappropriate to meet the standards for the installation and preservation of the structure, barring any special circumstance, such circumstance may be deemed as a defect in the installation and preservation of the structure (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da61615, Feb. 11, 2010).

In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was a defect in the installation and preservation of the instant Male as it did not have an ordinary safety that could protect the Plaintiff from falling into the inside, and thus, there was a defect in the installation and preservation thereof. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s injury due to the defect in the installation or preservation of the Malele as above.

① 이 사건 맨홀의 북동쪽으로 난 측면 입구에는 아무런 차단시설 없이 완전히 개방 된 상태로 방치되어 있었고 , 달리 안전시설이 설치되어 있지 않았으므로 이를 발견하지 못하고 그 주변을 지나갈 경우 발을 헛딛거나 미끄러질 가능성이 있고 , 그로 인하여 맨홀 안으로 추락하면서 부상 및 사망의 가능성이 충분히 존재하는 것으로 보인다 .

② In particular, there is a high possibility that it would not be possible to find out the open entrances when walking from the north-west side of the center of the instant case, as Plaintiff A, to walk from the opposite direction at the entrance of the side.

③ The steel net, which was installed only on the first upper part of the Mandole of this case, was insufficient to prevent the fall risk into the said Mandole (after the accident of this case, the steel net was additionally installed at the north-west side of the instant Mandole at the entrance of the upper part).

1. No. 1 The instant accident point is located in the flat green area in the park, and under the bottom of the point, only the lower level of pipes are planted and opened for easy access by anyone, and is in close vicinity to India connected to adjacent mountain trails and adjacent bus stops.

⑤ Nevertheless, there was no sign at all indicating facilities or risks that control the entry of the general public.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

The defendant, although the accident of this case is not a place used as a traffic route for the plaintiff A who did not walk along the traffic route, it is anticipated that the general public who passed the near route in light of the location, accessibility, etc. of the Manle of this case will pass through the point of this case at any time. In fact, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the images of No. 8-2, No. 29-1, and No. 29-2, the defendant is recognized as a circumstance where the accident of this case occurred in the right direction leading to the Manle of this case from the above mountain book, and as such, it is difficult to recognize that the accident of this case occurred as a result of the plaintiff's active behavior entirely. The defendant's assertion is without merit.

B) Limitation of liability

However, the plaintiff A neglected to perform his/her duty of care to ensure safety by taking into account the surrounding circumstances while walking the accident point in this case. Since the plaintiff A's office is deemed to have caused the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, but it shall be considered that the ratio of the plaintiff A's negligence shall be 40% in consideration of all circumstances, and the defendant's responsibility shall be limited to 60%.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Property damage;

In principle, the period of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but it shall be discarded less than the last month and less than won, and the calculation of the current value at the time of an accident of damages shall be based on the simple discount method which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month, and it shall be deemed to have been rejected (hereinafter referred to as "founded ground for recognition"): the fact that there is no dispute; the result of the request for physical appraisal of each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 18 through 28; the result of the request for physical appraisal with respect to the plaintiff A; the result of the party personal examination with respect to the plaintiff; the purport of

7) Property losses after offsetting negligence.

18, 307, and 124 won [ = (the king treatment cost of KRW 2,578, 701 + the future treatment cost of KRW 28, 998, 360 + the early treatment cost of KRW 5,004, 610 + the future treatment cost of KRW 8,907, 850 + 1,360, 00 for the future care cost of KRW 150, 329, 019) + 60%];

(b) Mental damage;

Taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the developments leading up to the occurrence of the accident of this case, the age and degree of negligence of the plaintiff A, the parts and degree of the injury and the aftermath disability, and the property status of the plaintiffs and the defendant, etc., the consolation money for the plaintiff A shall be calculated as 30,000,000 won, consolation money for the plaintiff B, 10,000,000 won, consolation money for the plaintiff C, and consolation money for the plaintiff C, respectively.

C. Determination on the part of the claim for regular prohibition

Since it is possible for Plaintiff A to survive even after October 23, 2024, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff expenses for future treatment, future auxiliary equipment expenses, and future nursing expenses under the condition of the Plaintiff’s survival even after the survival period. However, according to the results of the inquiry into the facts of July 24, 2015 into the head of △△ Hospital, the Plaintiff’s life expectancy of the Plaintiff can be recognized as 70% of the expected life expectancy, which is expected to be reduced to about 11 years, and it cannot be said that it falls under a case where it is difficult to determine the name of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A 148, 307, 124 won ( = 118, 307, 124 won + 30, 000, 000 won) and after October 26, 2013, the date of the accident, for which the plaintiffs seek after October 27, 2013, it is reasonable for the plaintiffs to dispute about the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation to pay 5% per annum from October 7, 2016, which is the date of this decision, and 15% per annum from the following day until the date of full payment.

However, the Plaintiffs seek payment of damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum from the day after the date of service of the application for amendment of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim to the day of full payment. However, the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015) provides that the statutory interest rate applicable after October 1, 2015 shall be 15% per annum. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim for payment of damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum by applying the aforementioned provision before the amendment is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims against the plaintiffs against the defendant of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-sik

Judges Lee Jae-Un