beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.24 2016가단212189

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,778,590 as well as 5% per annum from November 18, 2015 to January 17, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. While under the influence of alcohol on August 24, 2015, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, from the second floor of the building of “D” convenience store located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, which was going to the direction of the Plaintiff who was going to go to the toilet, and the Plaintiff was under the influence of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Plaintiff sustained injury (hereinafter “the instant injury”) such as the elbows, elbows, tensions, etc. in the part of the elbows, which is not known in detail due to the instant accident.

【Recognition of Fact-finding】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 3, Eul’s evidence 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding that the Defendant was liable for damages, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and caused the Plaintiff to suffer the injury of this case. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the place where the accident of this case occurred, namely, the stairs are stairs; the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the plaintiff was going in the direction opposite to the opposite direction, and it seems that the plaintiff could have known the defendant's situation in advance; it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, should have paid due attention to his safety by predicting the defendant's condition; and the plaintiff's negligence which neglected the above due care was caused by the accident of this case; therefore, it should be considered in calculating the defendant's damages amount, but the ratio is 10%, and the defendant's liability is limited to 90%.

B. Scope of liability for damages 1) In full view of each of the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and evidence Nos. 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff is from August 25, 2015 to August 2016.