2015 grouped 112303 (Counterclaim) Compensation for damages

Law Firm ○○, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney OOO, OO

Attorney ○-○, et al.

2. On May 23, 2014: around 00, in relation to the accident that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) caused damage to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s infant while running the party game, at around 00, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s liability for damages against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) does not exist beyond the amount indicated in paragraph (1).

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remainder of the main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s remainder of the counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder, respectively, by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) and Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) are running party games.

In relation to an accident that damages the infant's child, there is no liability for damages against the plaintiff's defendant.

check that the institution does not have any duty.

Counterclaim: The Plaintiff: 30,587,947 won and its counterclaim from May 23, 2014 to the Defendant.

Until the service date of a duplicate, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Korea shall pay the same amount of money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In full view of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11, and 12 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have the overall purport of the pleading.

5. 20: around 00: Around 20: Around 00, an accident that the Plaintiff caused a gold to eight (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”) due to the Defendant’s entry skill facing the Defendant, which the Plaintiff was going to go to the Gegeles, while running a game for the Gu party with the Defendant, etc. at the ○○○○○○○○○○○ level located in the Seoul ○○○○○-gu, Seoul, and ○○○○○○○○○○ level. As such, the Plaintiff is liable for compensating the Defendant for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to the instant accident.

B. However, even though the defendant was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care, such as being located far away from the surrounding areas of the plaintiff, in preparation for an accident that could occur, while running a party game like the plaintiff, and such negligence seems to have caused the expansion of the damage of this case, the plaintiff's responsibility is limited to 70% in consideration of this.

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages shall be the same as the corresponding item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages, and the period for calculating the amount for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but less than the last month and less than won shall be discarded. The current value calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the method of a simple interest deduction at the rate of 5/12 percent per month. Moreover, it shall be rejected that the parties

A. Personal information 1) Personal information: income and operation period in the annexed sheet for calculation of damages: 2. Urban daily wage shall apply) : 1.14% of the labor capacity loss rate due to the balance of dental children and the cut fluoral wave (i.e., the method of calculating the loss rate of dental skills) due to the addition sheet for calculation of damages: 5,385,580 won in total as stated in the annexed sheet for calculation of damages: 78,000 won in each day, 80 won in each day, 3.4% in total, 40 won in each day, 50 won in treatment expenses, 380 won in each day: 78,00 won in each day, 40 won in each day, 50 won in each day, 50 days in each day, 50, 380 won in each day, 50 days in each day, 38 days in each case’s first day in each case’s first day in each case’s treatment expenses.

C. Limitation on liability

Expenses for future treatment: 9,51,588 won (13, 587, 984 won x 0.7), 3, 769, 906 won (5, 385, 580 won x 0.7)

D. In a case where a victim who received insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act claims for damages against a third party, and where the victim’s negligence competes with the third party, the amount of damages calculated first shall be offset by negligence, and the insurance benefits shall be deducted from the amount of damages calculated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da50149, Dec. 26, 2002). Therefore, the amount of insurance benefits shall be deducted from the sum of medical expenses paid by the Plaintiff from April 21, 2014 to August 18, 2014, the National Health Insurance Corporation charges of KRW 226,00,000 shall be deducted.

(e) Consideration of consolation money 1): Amount recognized as follows: 5,00,000 won (all circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the developments of the instant case, the age of the Defendant, and the parts and degree of the injury and the disability in the aftermath:

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3 to 8 evidence, Eul 1 to 6, and 10 evidence (including numbers), the court's entrustment of physical appraisal to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a result of fact inquiry

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 18,05,494 ( KRW 3,769,906 for lost daily income + KRW 9,511,588 for future treatment + KRW 226,00 for the Corporation’s charges + KRW 5,00 for consolation money + KRW 5,000 for consolation money) and for this, May 2014.

23. From April 29, 2016, which is the date of this decision, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 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 next day to the date of full payment. As long as the Defendant is disputing this, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of the part exceeding the above amount.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim are justified within the scope of each recognition, and since the plaintiff's remaining principal lawsuit and the defendant's remaining counterclaim are without merit, it is so decided as per Disposition.