손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 3,828,942 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from November 20, 2015 to February 4, 2016.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a person who operates the Dpenta (hereinafter “instant penta”) located in Kimpo City, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant penta”).
B. On August 6, 201, the activities of the Plaintiff, Nonparty E, F, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) were conducted by club meetings in the instant penta, which were provided by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, etc. turned into shots by using charcoal and portable butane gas possessed by the Plaintiff, etc. on the instant penta (hereinafter “instant penta”). The activities of the Plaintiff, Nonparty E, F, etc. (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) were driven by the Plaintiff, etc.
However, there was an accident in which portable butane gas was explosiond at the bottom of the instant chemical, among the string roads that had been drinking by a string (hereinafter “instant accident”).
C. The freight of this case can be consumed by putting charcoal in the upper part of the upper part of the building, with a receipt room where goods can be received at the lower part of the building, the receipt room is slided both, and both the upper part and the lower part of the facility are in black, and there are no particular guidance words on the receipt book attached thereto.
In the guidance of the instant pentecur, the users of the instant pentecur has brought about charcoal, bombs, ranchess, and portable butane gas (shotization), and the goods provided by the Defendant were earth lamps, etc. to be used by the Defendant when emitting bombs by connecting bomb and portable butane gas.
E. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff sustained injuries, such as entering the head and 2 degrees of images in the field of head and .
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 16, Eul evidence No. 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties 1 was negligent in causing the instant accident due to the defendant's failure to fulfill his duty of care as a penter at the time of the instant accident, and as to the instant accident.