A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 13, 565, 325 won among them, 10,00 won, and 15% interest per annum from November 25, 2013 to December 23, 2015, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, with respect to 3,565, and 325 won, 5% interest per annum from November 25, 2013 to August 18, 2016, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 1/2 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The defendant's claim of this case against the plaintiff 28,061,922 won and the plaintiff's claim of this case from November 25, 2013

Until the delivery date of a copy of the application for change, 5% per annum, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment.

The payment of each proportion of money shall be made.

2. Purport of appeal

In the judgment of the first instance court against the defendant, the part of the judgment against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim

The dismissal is dismissed.

A. The Defendant is responsible for the installation, operation, and management of the bus stops installed at the bus stops of Daegu Metropolitan City Metropolitan City and the bus stops.

B. On November 25, 2013: around 40, the Plaintiff covered the Plaintiff while waiting the bus at the bus stops adjacent to the bus stops located adjacent to the Daegu Nam-gu 0-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 0-gu, with the signs of the bus stops facing the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was involved in an accident that is severely faced with the Plaintiff while going beyond the Indian floor (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the structural frame of the right-side sloping, the upper left-hand sloping, and the pressure scarke, etc., and accordingly received the blood scarcity and metal-resistant operation on the left-hand spelkes.

D. On or before and after November 10, 2013, the day before and after the instant accident, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in Bosston Hospital for 72 days in total, including 17 days from December 26, 2013 to January 11, 2014, and 17 days from April 10, 2014 to April 26, 201, and was hospitalized in Boston Hospital for 20 days from November 11, 2013 to December 18, 2013, after which the instant accident occurred, for 38 days from November 11, 2013 to December 11, 2013; and was hospitalized in Boston Hospital for 20 days from January 30, 2014 to the date of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 6, 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Liability of the possessor or the owner of a structure for damages;

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant who installs and manages bus stops and signs, etc. is obligated to manage them so that such signs, etc. are collapsed or come to go beyond the human body by leaving them solid on India. Nevertheless, the defendant neglected such safety measures and caused the instant accident. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as the possessor and owner of the structure under Article 758 of the Civil Act.

B. Limitation on liability

Since the Plaintiff was in the instant accident in the situation where he was waiting for bus stops at all, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff with regard to the occurrence of the instant accident.

However, in full view of the statement No. 1 and the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the Daegu Regional Headquarters of the National Health Insurance Corporation, the Plaintiff, prior to the instant accident, shall be deemed to have taken account of the overall purport of the pleadings.

19. In the Gyeongsa Hospital, 'the frame and closedness of outer side copies'; 'the frame and closedness of the Masaeng Masaeng Maseng Maseng Maseng on January 7, 2013; 'the frame and closedness of other light body parts' at Bosa Hospital on February 13, 2013; 'the framework of other light body parts' at Bosa Masa Hospital on February 23, 2013; 'the troke and tensions' on February 23, 2012.

12. The fact that the medical treatment has been received several times thereafter, and in particular, in relation to the fluoral flusium, the fact that the fluoral flusium had been received.

11. Recognizing the fact that a person received medical treatment with "alley, closed, etc. of the part of the other booms."

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, who was in a state of defrising from a king’s disease, suffered from a sudden shock of the instant accident, such as the frame of the right-free aggregate, the left-hand framework, etc.

Ultimately, since the plaintiff's king influenced the occurrence and expansion of the accident of this case, the contribution of the plaintiff's king was recognized as 50% and considered in calculating the plaintiff's damage.

3. Scope of liability for damages;

(a) Actual income:

The Plaintiff, due to the instant accident, sought damages from lost income during the 79-day period of hospitalization at a hospital, and damages from lost income for the year of disability of 12% due to an in-depth disability of 12% due to an in-depth care in the field of an in-depth dog, and 9% due to a plelare 9% due to an in-depth disability.

However, the fact that the Plaintiff did not engage in income activities at the time of the instant accident is not disputed between the parties, and thus, the lost income loss is not recognized, and the circumstances where the Plaintiff was hospitalized for a long time and the injury was suffered due to the temporary disability should be considered in calculating consolation money.

(b) Medical expenses and nursing expenses;

In full view of the reasoning of the evidence No. 9 and the purport of the argument as a result of each physical appraisal commission (including the result of supplementation of appraisal) to the head of the hospital and the head of the hospital of the first instance court, the Plaintiff spent the total of KRW 2,116,99 for the instant accident, and the expenditure of KRW 2,100,000 for the opening cost of KRW 50,000 for 42 days after the instant accident was 42 days, and there was a need to incur KRW 1,790,000 for the first half of the accident, and the future demand for KRW 1,790,000 for the half of the first half of the accident, KRW 1,50,00 for the removal of gold plates, and KRW 0 for the removal of gold plates.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the expenses incurred in the antiscopic surgery and the removal of metal plates have been spent not later than the closure of pleadings at the trial, each of the above operation expenses shall be deemed disbursed on July 8, 2016, which is the day following the date of the closure of pleadings at the trial at the trial at the trial, and the expenses incurred in the antiscopic surgery shall be calculated as KRW 1,585,239, and the expenses incurred in the removal of metal plates shall be calculated as KRW 1,328,413.

Therefore, it is reasonable to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 7,130,651 (=2,16,99 + 2,10,00 + 1,585,239 + 1,328,413 + KRW 50 per cent in consideration of the degree of contribution to the above treatment costs and nursing costs) out of the total amount of KRW 7,130,651 ( KRW 2,16,99 + KRW 1,585,239 + KRW 1,328,413).

(c) Compensation money;

It is reasonable to determine consolation money to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff received long-term hospitalized treatment due to the instant accident; (b) the Plaintiff had to suffer inconvenience in daily life or housework for a considerable period of time; (c) the Plaintiff’s previous disease affected the expansion of damage caused by the instant accident; (d) the background of the instant accident; and (e) the seriousness of the Defendant’s responsibility; and (e) other circumstances shown in the present pleading process.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff KRW 13,565,325 ( = 3,565,325 + KRW 10,00,000 + KRW 10,000) and damages for delay from November 25, 2013, which is the date of the instant accident, deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform; KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act until December 23, 2015, which is the date of the adjudication of the first instance, until December 23, 2015, and KRW 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; KRW 3,565,325, the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and KRW 15% per annum from the date of the instant accident to the date of full payment; and KRW 25% per annum of the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the decision of the court of first instance.

Judges Oo-crimes

delay by the judge