2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. From around 19:00 on February 11, 2008, the deceased non-party 1 entered the soup ○○○ (hereinafter “the soup ○○”). Around 01:00 on the following day after drinking the soup ju and bees, he was found to have sat and satis at the soup cafeteria and sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat s

B. At the time of the instant accident, the soup employees did not take safety measures such as controlling soup access to the sobrying Non-Party 1, under the influence of alcohol, or patroling the sobrying draft of the instant case. In addition, in the sobrying restaurant within the sobrying site of the instant case, they sold the sobry to the visitors admitted to the sobry bank.

C. The Plaintiffs are parents of the deceased Nonparty 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties or the purport of Gap 1, 2, and Eul 1-2, the testimony of non-party 2 and the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) Pursuant to Article 4(7) of the Public Health Control Act and Article 7 [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, Article 2(d) of the same Act, the position of a public bath business operator is at least limited to a person who is deemed to have difficulties in normal use of public bath due to drinking, etc. through his/her employees, while the public bath business operator has a duty of care to prevent accidents in public bath by frequently checking the

(2) In full view of the following circumstances: (a) as seen earlier in the instant case, a number of circumstances acknowledged in the instant case; (b) did not control the access of the deceased Nonparty 1 who was under the influence of alcohol; and (c) there was no evidence to deem that the soup employees were frequently inspected the soup draft to prevent safety accidents; and (b) barring special circumstances, it can be deemed that there was a proximate causal link between the Defendant’s negligence and the occurrence of the instant accident. Therefore, pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act or Article 756 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to compensate all damages incurred to the deceased and their parents due to the instant accident.

B. Limitation of liability and exemption of the defendant

However, as seen earlier, the deceased was also able to take a soup of the instant accident in a sobry manner while under the influence of alcohol, as well as her position in the sobrying, and was found to have been erroneous after drinking thereafter, and such mistake was an important cause for the occurrence of the instant accident or the expansion of damages, but it was not immediately exempted from the Defendant’s liability (so, the Defendant’s assertion of exemption is not acceptable). However, in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable for damages, this is to be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable, but the ratio of negligence shall be set at 90% (the Defendant’s ratio of liability : 10%)

3. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual profits;

The loss of lost profits equivalent to the total appraised value of the operating capacity lost due to the instant accident is based on the facts recognized as follows: (1) and the content of the assessment; (2) pursuant to the Hofmanial Calculation Act, which deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as follows: (1) the total of KRW 168,598,130 calculated at the present price as of the date of the instant accident pursuant to paragraph (2).

(1) Facts and details of assessment

(a) Gender: The date of birth of male: omitted; and

Prospective life: 39.06

(b)financial assessment of operating capacity;

① The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the deceased’s lost earnings should be calculated on the basis of the actual income amount (2,800,000 won per month) of the deceased is still insufficient evidence to support this, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

② As at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was living in an urban area from February 12, 2008 to May 4, 2029, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff could obtain income equivalent to the general wage in the urban area by operating the 22th day of each month from February 12, 2008 to May 4, 2029. The daily wage in the urban area is KRW 60,547 until April 30, 2008, and KRW 63,530 from the next day until August 31, 208, and KRW 66,622 from the next day until the end of the operation period.

(c)Operation period: by the date on which he reaches sixty years of age;

(D) Cost of living: 1/3. Monthly income

(e) Ratio of loss of labour capacity: 100%.

[Reasons for Recognition] The court is remarkably interested, there is no dispute between the parties, or the purport of Gap 1's entries and the whole pleadings.

(2) Calculation: Total amount of 168,598,130 won = (60,547 x 22 days x 2/3 x 22 days x 9752) + [2/30 x 22 days x 2/3 x 3.9105 (=6.857 - 2.9752)] + + 66,622 x 22 days x 22 days x 22 days x 16.126 (=6.983 - 857 )]; hereinafter the same shall apply].

B. Funeral expenses of Plaintiff 1: 3,000,000 won (the fact that there is no dispute)

(c) Set-off of negligence;

(1) The defendant's liability ratio: 10%.

(2) Calculation

(A) Property loss of the deceased: 16,859,813 won (=168,598,130 won x 10%)

(B) Funeral expenses loss of Plaintiff 1: KRW 300,000 (=3,000,000) x 10%)

(d) Condolence money;

(1) Reasons for taking into account: the deceased’s age, family relation, career, property and educational level, the details and result of the instant accident, and other various circumstances shown in the present argument.

(2) The amount determined;

(A) The Deceased: 10,000,000 won.

(b) Plaintiffs: each of the 5,000,000 won

(e) Inheritance relationship;

(1) Inheritance ratio: “1: 1.”

(b) Inheritance amount: 13,429,906 won each [((16,859,813 won + 10,000,000 won) x 1/2];

4. Conclusion

Therefore, with damages recognized above, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff 1 for 18,729,906 won in inheritance + 300,000 won in inheritance + 5,000,000 won in funeral expenses + 18,429,906 won in inheritance + 13,429,906 won in inheritance + 5,000,000 won in inheritance + 5,006 won in inheritance + 5,000,000 won in inheritance + 5,000,000 won in inheritance) as well as for each of them from February 12, 2008, the date of the accident, which appears to be able to be disputed about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to perform each of the above obligations, until February 5, 2009, which is 13,0000 won in inheritance, and each of the above claims shall be accepted within the scope of 13,000 won in accordance with the proviso of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-young