2.B

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney 000

Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The defendant is a corporation whose main business purpose is large-scale discount management, sales of essential daily necessities, etc., and establishes and operates a large discount store in the name of "Mamart across the country". From July 19, 2007 to July 19, 2007, the defendant operates the "Mamart stop" at the 198 ground floor in Gwangju Nam-gu and the 198 underground floor.

B. On January 20, 2015, at around 14:40 to 15:00, Plaintiff A containing food in shopping car, which was kept for high-priced customers at the 1st floor food store underground of the e-mail wing line, and moved to the first floor of the ground by using ice ice ice (conform as designed for the convenience of movement in light of the street, etc.; hereinafter “ice ice ice”).

C. At the time, there was a woman boarding the electric wheelchairs in front of the Plaintiff A. At the time, around the time when the said woman almost reached the first floor of the ground following the movement of ice-free workshops, the wheel chairs of the electric wheelchairs would not walk up to the top floor above the first floor of the ground.

D. According to the continuous progress of the instant ice Works, Plaintiff A had access to the front wheelchairs from the front wheelchairs, and Plaintiff A’s shopping camera and the front wheelchairs were faced with. Although the instant ice Works continued, the electric wheelchairs and the shopping camera still did not seem to fall under the end of the ice project. In the process, Plaintiff A attempted to go out through a narrow space on the side of the shopping car, and the electric wheelchairs were to go out of the front wheelchairs in the future, thereby getting out of the ice in balance and getting out of the first floor of the ground (hereinafter “the instant accident”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20193, Dec. 2, 2006>

E. The plaintiff B is the plaintiff A's wife.

[Ground of recognition] A. A. 1-2 evidence (including a number with a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence 2 as a result of a reproduction of CCTV video recorded at the time of the accident, the gist of the plaintiffs' arguments 2. The plaintiffs' arguments

A. The Defendant, as an operator of a large-scale large-scale store with large access and movement, has a duty of care to manage facilities inside and outside the store so that customers may use facilities for safe operation. Moreover, the Defendant was aware of the risk of an accident in advance, if the electric wheelchairs are used for ice-free workshops other than the elevator.

B. Nevertheless, at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant did not take appropriate inside or taking protective measures against the front wheelchairs passenger passengers at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, and as such, the Defendant did not take appropriate measures even after the front wheelchairs passenger used a ice-free workshop. The instant accident is due to the Defendant’s negligence that failed to fulfill his duty of care to protect the client’s body.

C. On February 25, 2015 due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A was diagnosed as “vertebrate ebrate ebrate ebrate” and was subject to “vertebrate ebrate ebrate” on March 19, 2015.

D. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to KRW 33,234,492 in total for Plaintiff A (the treatment cost of KRW 7,984,492 + KRW 250,000 + KRW 25,000 + KRW 25,000), and damages for delay for Plaintiff B, who is a wife of Plaintiff A, as well as damages for delay.

3. Determination,

A. In the case of a large-scale store such as the e-mail bus bars in which the instant accident occurred, various kinds of goods, such as food, clothing, and household appliances, as well as various facilities, such as restaurants, travel agencies, and laundry, are installed, and a large number of people have access to the store and frequent movement in the store. Accordingly, the operator of a large-scale store such as the Defendant bears the duty of safety consideration to manage the facilities inside and outside the store and protect customers from various risks that may occur in the store.

B. However, as a result of the reproduction of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and evidence Nos. 2, “The CCTV video recorded at the time of the accident”, it is insufficient to conclude that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone was negligent in performing the above duty of care for safety at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

1) First of all, there is no evidence that there was any functional defect or defect in the ice Work at the time of the instant accident. Although the purport of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is not clear, the Plaintiffs do not mean that the instant accident was caused by the defect in the installation or preservation of the ice Work (see preparatory document dated March 7, 2016).

2) At the entrance of the stud line above the ground floor, and near the entrance point of the ice ice-scam from the 1st floor above the ground level to the 1st floor above the entrance point of the ice-scam, the phrase “it may be dangerous for wheel passengers to use the ice-camscams.” The above ice-cambling level is also installed in the vicinity of the above ice-caming point where the ice-camscamscamscamscamscam to the 1st floor above the above ice-camscamscambling point where the wheel-camscamscam to the 1st floor above the above ice-camscambling point.

3) The fixed-line bus bars consisting of 7 stories above ground and 1 stories below ground, and the elevator for customers is installed near the entrance of the first floor above ground, and there is an elevator for customers. The elevator side of the elevator provides a guidance stating that "I will operate only the first floor to 7 stories above ground." It is true that the elevator mainly operates only the first to 7 stories above ground.

However, the elevator door of the first floor of the ground has a phrase "the safe method of using an elevator" with the content that "if a wheelchairs passenger uses a ice workshop, it is likely to cause safety accidents." On the ground side of the elevator, there is a phrase "the safe method of using an elevator" with the content that "the safe method of using an elevator for persons with disabilities" is prepared. The customer who has inconvenience in body or is difficult to use a ice hold a ice, will help a ice," and there is an emergency call device that is connected with a gate employee. If a person in charge of the wheel passenger calls the staff, the staff in charge can directly operate the elevator and move the elevator to the first floor above the ground, and it is also possible in the same manner as it is possible to move from the first floor to the first floor above the ground.

4) As can be seen, the Defendant guides passengers aboard the electric wheelchairs to the effect that there is an examination of the occurrence of an accident when they use the electric wheelchairs, and provides guidance to passengers aboard the electric wheelchairs so that they can enter the upper floor and the upper floor through the elevator, and have physical and human systems for the elevator repair of passengers aboard the electric wheelchairs.

It cannot be said that the above measures of the defendant cannot be fully satisfied in that the defendant's above measures cannot be said to be completely satisfied in that the passengers on the electric wheelchairs cannot use the elevator by themselves without the assistance of the employees in charge, and the above measures cannot be said to be completely satisfied. Even so, it cannot be readily concluded that the operator of the large-scale discount store failed to meet the general level of safety consideration required by social norms.

5) The Plaintiffs asserts that the Defendant did not take appropriate measures before and after the occurrence of the instant accident. In fact, the instant ice workshop on the back of the elevator do not have an employee in charge of safety management.

However, even though a female customer boarding the front wheelchairs, which caused the instant accident, requested the Defendant to assist, the Defendant did not have any evidence to prove that the said female customer used the front wheelchairs. On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that there was no evidence to prove that the front wheelchairs, which female guest on board, caused the instant accident, was left alone for a long time in a state where it cannot be seen that the front wheelchairs was caused by the end of the instant ice.

Rather, according to CCTV images taken at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, it can be confirmed that the employees belonging to the Defendant, after the occurrence of the instant accident, come to the scene after the occurrence of the accident.

C. As long as it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s breach of duty of care as above, the Plaintiffs’ assertion cannot be accepted without examining the occurrence and scope of damages.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.