beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.09 2015가단48319

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to Plaintiff A for KRW 26,907,916, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, and each of them. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25090, Oct. 1, 2014>

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 19:00 on October 16, 2014, Defendant D reported the Plaintiff A, who is gathering water from a water purifier in a dormitory in G High School, and knenee, at the price (hereinafter “instant accident”) as it is (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B) At the time of the instant accident, Plaintiff A and Defendant D (H) were enrolled in the second grade of G high school at the time of the instant accident. Plaintiff B and C are the Plaintiff’s parents, and Defendant E and F are the parents of Defendant D. [Grounds for Recognition] There was no dispute on the grounds of recognition; Defendant D was sent back to the hospital immediately after receiving a axis, such as Defendant D; Plaintiff A was hospitalized for about 17 days after suffering from an injury, such as salt, tension, and tension, in the instant accident; Plaintiff A was hospitalized for medical treatment until July 17, 2015. Plaintiff A and Defendant D (H) were in the second grade of G high school. Plaintiff B and C were the parents of the Plaintiff; Defendant E and F were the parents of the Defendant D; Defendant D was jointly obligated to pay compensation to the Plaintiffs for the instant accident; Defendant D was negligent in paying compensation to the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident; Defendant D’s negligence in performing the duty of care and supervision; and Defendant D’s duty of care and supervision over the instant accident.

B. As recognized prior to the limitation of liability, the instant accident included water from water purifiers, but prices the Plaintiff’s knenee with Defendant D’s knee with its own body (at that time, Defendant D seems to have been in distress). If the circumstances leading up to the instant accident are the same, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff violated any duty of care in social life with respect to the occurrence of the instant accident.

Therefore, the accident of this case.