가. 인정사실 (1) 원고는 2010. 6. 9. 15:00경 피고가 운영하는 천안시 동남구 병천면 매성2길 103에 있는 버드우드 골프클럽(이하 ‘이 사건 골프장’이라 한다)의 2번 홀에서 티샷을 하고 도보로 이동하던 중, B이 3번 홀에서 티샷을 한 골프공이 휘어지면서 2번 홀로 날아와 원고의 얼굴을 치는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)를 당하였다.

(2) The Plaintiff or the sports assistant in B did not pay attention to either moving or putting public order after verifying the progress or direction of the movement of another team, and the sports assistant in B did not issue a warning to the other team even though he or she went to the golf hole while he or she left.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 and 2, the result of this court's order to submit documents to the same fire marine insurance corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. In the case of golf recognition of liability, there are cases where a game assistant, who is the Defendant’s performance assistant, failed to perform his/her duty of care to prevent accidents that occur due to golf machines by checking the game progress or movement direction of golf course users, and thereby failing to perform his/her duty of care to prevent accidents due to golf machines. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 391 of the Civil Act.

Meanwhile, Article 766(1) of the Civil Act on the liability of tort cannot be applied to the claim for damages caused by nonperformance of the duty of safety consideration under the golf club usage agreement. Since the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on February 19, 2014 before five years have passed since the date of occurrence of the accident, the extinctive prescription under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act is completed.