2. AB.

3. ThisCC;

2. D Co., Ltd.

3. G.

4. B.

5. Pstock company.

6. H stock company;

24. From May 26, 2016, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective claims against defendant P Co., Ltd. and H Co., Ltd. and all remaining claims against defendant J Co., Ltd., D Co., Ltd., G Co., Ltd. and Eul are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant P Co., Ltd. and H Co., Ltd. is borne by the plaintiffs and the defendant J Co., Ltd., D Co., Ltd., G and B Co., Ltd. (including the part arising from participation) by 95% is borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the above defendants and the supplementary intervenors by the defendant Co., Ltd.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

From May 24, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to KRW 10,00,000 and each of the above money.

shall pay 5% interest per annum, 15% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the statements and images set forth in Gap's 2, 11 through 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, Eul's 1 through 4, and the purpose of the entire testimony and pleadings:

A. The parties concerned 1) The plaintiff Jung-A is the person who participated in the golf player Kim ○'s game assistant, and the plaintiff Jung-B and thisCC are the plaintiff Jung-A's parents, and the defendant J. (hereinafter referred to as "J") is the person who relayed the instant competition, and the defendant J. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant J. D") is the person who hosts the instant competition, and the defendant J. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant J. D.") is the person who hosts the instant competition, and the defendant J. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant D.) is the person who hosts the instant P.D., and the defendant J. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant D.) is the person who hosts the instant game.

The insurer who entered into an insurance contract with Defendant P to guarantee the occurrence of an accident within the 88 golf course, and M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) as an assisting intervenor in Defendant B is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with Defendant B to guarantee the occurrence of an accident in the instant competition.

B. On April 9, 2013, Defendant D entered into the following contracts with Defendant G for the instant Games.

Article 1 (Purpose of Contract) The objective of this Agreement is that the host company (Defendant G) and the host company (Defendant D) are conducting the instant competition smoothly and successfully.Article 2 (Roles and Responsibilities) ① The host company is the leading company certifying that the instant competition is the official contest of the KPA, and is the holder of all rights and rights related to the instant competition, and is responsible for all matters related to the administration of the instant competition and the progress of the instant competition, and part of the operating expenses. ② The host company, as the sponsor of the instant competition, publicized himself through the instant competition and is responsible for the prize and all expenses incurred in relation to the instant competition. ② The host company, as the sponsor of the instant competition, promoted himself through the instant competition, and is responsible for the prize and all expenses incurred in relation to the instant competition.Article 3 (Opening of the instant competition) ①: The venue of the host company: 600 million won: the venue of the host company's election.

Defendant D, B: Defendant B, and B: (1) as the sponsor of the instant Games, A performs the role of planning and financial budget for the Games, and operates the Games. (2) B performs the role of operating the instant Games, and performs such tasks as installation, removal, supply and demand of human resources, and preparation of anti-facilities. (1) Article 4 (main Terms and Conditions of Contract) A pays expenses mutually agreed upon to B and entrusts A with the operation and performance of the Games. (2) Article 5 (Rights and Obligations of A) (1) provides for the authority to operate the Games and supervision thereof. (2) Article 5 (Right and Duties of A) and (3) provides for the following matters with respect to the implementation of the instant golf course, A may request A to report on its progress from time to time, and B may request A to carry out the instant golf course with respect to the establishment and operation of the instant golf course. (3) To the maximum extent possible, A shall be able to carry out the duties of A and A, with respect to the instant golf course installation and operation of the instant case.

골프코스임대 계약주최사 : 피고 D골프장 : 피고 P제4조 ( 주요 계약내용 )① 계약기간본 계약의 기간은 계약체결일로부터 2014. 5. 31. 까지 한다 .② 임대금액코스임대료로 주최사는 골프장에게 3억 5, 000만 원을 지급한다 .제5조 ( 주최사의 권리와 의무 )① 주최사는 이 사건 대회의 운영계획, 광고, 홍보계획, 스폰서 유치 및 조건을 포함하여 대회 전반에 대한 최종 승인권을 갖는다 .제6조 ( 골프장의 권리와 의무 )② 골프장은 이 사건 대회 기간 중 플레이 하는 선수 및 대회관계자들의 동선을 상호 협의하여 진행한다 . ③ 골프장은 성공적인 대회 개최를 위해 공식대회 규정에 적합한 코스 및 부대시설을 제공한다 .다. 사고의 발생1 ) 원고 정AA은 이 사건 대회 본선 3일째인 2014. 5. 24. 15 : 00경 11번홀 티샷을 마친 김대현 선수를 따라가던 중 잔디밭 사이의 카트 통행로 부근에서 피고 J이 이 사건 대회의 중계를 위해 설치한 방송케이블에 걸려 넘어지는 사고 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 사고 ' 라고 한다 ) 를 당하였고, 그 과정에서 양측 주관절 ( 팔꿈치 ) 요골두 골절의 상해를 입었다 . 2 ) 이 사건 사고 장소에 설치된 방송케이블은 카트가 통행하는 길을 가로질러 잔디밭 위에 설치되어 있었는데, 카트 통행로를 지나가는 방송케이블은 덮개 등의 안전장치가 설치되지 아니한 채 그대로 노출된 상태였고, 잔디밭 위를 지나가는 방송케이블도 외부에 노출된 상태로 길게 자란 잔디에 가려 육안으로 쉽게 눈에 띄지 않는 상태였으며 , 여러 가닥의 방송케이블이 헝클어진 상태로 설치되어 있었고, 주의를 촉구하는 표지판이 설치되어 있지는 않았다 .

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In the case of Defendant J, D, G and B

1) According to the above facts, in installing a broadcast cable in the golf course for the relay of the instant competition, Defendant J has a duty of care to safely install cables so that players, sports assistants, and Games-related persons do not get affected by the broadcast cable. Defendant B, upon entrustment of Defendant D, is in charge of the work of installing various facilities necessary for the instant competition, installing and removing various devices, etc., and has a duty of care to prevent accidents by installing safety devices such as covers or installing signboards so as to prevent accidents from occurring due to the broadcast cable installed for relay of the instant competition. Defendant D and G, as the sponsor and manager of the instant competition, have Plaintiff EA suffered from the instant accident due to negligence, even though they had a duty of care to safely operate the instant competition and supervise the instant event. Barring special circumstances, the said Defendants, as joint tortfeasor, are liable to compensate for damages caused by the instant accident.

2) On this issue, Defendant D merely borne the prize money and expenses of the instant Games, but did not participate in the operation of the instant Games, and therefore, Defendant G, J, and B did not bear any responsibility for the instant accident. The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total negligence, which was caused by the Plaintiff EA’s failure to properly look at the surrounding areas while moving the instant golf banks with heavy golf rain, and ③ Defendant B was entrusted only with the duties of controlling parking lots, installing advertisements, and protecting the instant advertisements during the period of the instant competition, and thus, Defendant B was not responsible for the instant accident.

The following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence, evidence No. 24-1, 2, and 3’s purport of each film and pleading, i.e., the broadcast cable installed in the instant accident site without a separate safety device, even though the cable installed in a route where players and Games-related persons move, and the cable was installed without a separate safety device, and the cable was not installed, and the cable could have been left over without due care for those who passed the accident. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26689, Oct. 10, 2015>

6. From the 11th day of the same month to the 11st day of the same month, the broadcast cables installed with the cart passage paths and redry field street from among the broadcast cables installed at the time of the Incheon Song-do Golf Games were installed in a way that they can safely pass by the cart and people by covering a tunnel with an easily visible color. The broadcast cables passing through the redry field were installed under the ground, and the broadcast cables installed in accordance with the control line to prevent the entry of the audience. In light of the fact that the broadcast cables installed safely.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff Company’s negligence in the occurrence of the instant event cannot be seen as a ground for denying the Defendants’ duty of care, even if the Plaintiff Company’s negligence was partially involved in the instant event, it cannot be seen as a ground for denying the Defendants’ duty of care. ④ Defendant D had the ultimate authority to approve the designation of the place for the instant event, the operating system, advertisement, publicity plan, and the sponsor’s attraction and conditions, etc.; Defendant B entered into direct contracts with Defendant G, B, and Defendant B while preparing for the instant event; and Defendant B had the right to supervise the operation of the instant event. In light of the fact that the operation execution contract entered into with Defendant B, which was entered into with Defendant B, entered into with Defendant B, the overall operation of the instant event was determined as having been practically involved in the instant event; even if Defendant D did not participate in the instant event, in light of the content of each contract entered into by Defendant D, the Defendants’ duty to remove the instant cable product or the instant accident related to the instant broadcast product is not included in the Defendants’ duty of care.

B. In the case of Defendant P and H

As seen earlier, Defendant P, while leasing the 88 golf course to Defendant D with which the instant games were held, agreed on the mutual consultation between Defendant D, players, and persons related to the games, and agreed on the provision of courses and ancillary facilities suitable for the official competition regulations. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant P participated in the operation of the instant games. The instant accident is not caused by the defect in the course of the 88 golf course and ancillary facilities, but by the cable installed by Defendant J., it cannot be deemed that Defendant P had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the instant accident. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant P and the claim against Defendant H on the premise that Defendant P are responsible for the instant accident is without merit.

3. Scope of liability for damages

The parties' arguments that are not separately explained shall be rejected, and the amount below the cost for the convenience of calculation shall be discarded, and the present price shall be calculated at the time of the accident of this case, according to the discount law that deducts intermediary interest at the rate of 5/12 per month.

(a) Personal information;

The basic matters of the attached table of calculation of damages are as shown in the column of "basic matters".

2) Income;

In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 26, and 27, the plaintiff Jeong's income was recognized as 25,347,50 won as 25,347, and 500 won as 1 year 2013, and it is determined that the same amount of monthly income can be earned as 2,112, and 291 won ( = 25,347,50 won) as 2,112, and 291 won as 12 months.

As to this, the plaintiff Jung-A argued that the above amount should also be included in calculating the actual profit because it was obtained the monthly average of 2 million won as at the time of the accident of this case, but the statement of No. 7 and No. 10 alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3) In full view of the results of the physical appraisal on the director of Seoul University Hospital at the 1,000 m2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the labor disability ratio of the Plaintiff Jeong is recognized as 19% for three years from the date of the instant accident.

As to this, the plaintiff Jeong-A asserts that the labor ability loss rate is at least 80% until the age of 60, which is operated, since it is no longer possible to act as a golf player or a golf instructor if it is treated for 3 years due to the accident in this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. 4)

The sum of the actual income in attached Table 13,435,782, such as the column of "the sum of the lost income" shall be KRW 13,435,782.

(b) Expenses for medical treatment;

In full view of the contents and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 13 as a whole, it may be recognized that the medical expenses incurred by the Plaintiff Company incurred by the Plaintiff Company constitute 3,68, and 385.

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

In full view of the results of physical examination and the purport of the entire pleadings with respect to the head of the relevant Sincheon University Seoul Hospital, the Plaintiff Jeongcheon University is deemed to require rehabilitation treatment, such as heat treatment, electricity treatment, and ornamental physical treatment, on three occasions a week from the date of the instant accident, for three years from the date of the instant accident. As such, if expenses are to be calculated for three months from April 20, 2016 to May 24, 2017, which is three years from the date of the date of the instant accident, the date following the date of the closing of argument, the amount of KRW 3,120,00 (=20,000 per time medical treatment x 4 x 4 x 4 x x 13 months). Accordingly, the amount of KRW 2,857,920 shall be calculated as at the time of the instant accident on the day following the date of the closure of pleadings for the convenience of the calculation.

D. Limitation on liability

Before participating as the game assistant of the instant games, Plaintiff Jeong-A had participated in the instant golf games several times as a game assistant of the professional golf player, and after the elementary school, it has been engaged in the instant golf player activities. As such, in comparison with the general public, it is highly understood that the instant accident occurred, the date of the instant accident seems to have passed several times prior to the instant accident, and the broadcast cable would have been aware or could have been aware of the fact that the instant accident was installed at or near the instant accident site. In light of the background of the instant accident and the circumstances before and after the instant accident, Defendant J, D, G, and B cannot be deemed to have gross negligence, the liability of the said Defendants shall be limited to 40% of the amount of damages, taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the instant argument.

(e) Property damage 7, 984, 834 won (total sum of property damage 19,962, 087 won ( = lost income 13,435, 782 won + 3,68,385 won + future treatment expenses 2,857, 920 won) X 40% after limitation on liability);

(f) consolation money;

Considering the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, the parts and degree of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff Company A due to the instant accident, the relationship between the Plaintiffs, and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments, the consolation money of the Plaintiff Company A, the Plaintiff CompanyB, and the CC shall be set at KRW 1,500,000, respectively.

Therefore, Defendant J, D, G, and B are jointly liable for damages to Plaintiff Jeong-A for payment of KRW 12,984,834 ( = Property damage + KRW 7,984,834 + KRW 5,00,000 + KRW 1,500,000, and KRW 00) from May 24, 2014, the date of tort, to which it is reasonable for the said Defendants to dispute on the existence and scope of their obligations, and to pay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from May 26, 2016, until the date of the instant judgment, until the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant J, D, G, and H are justified within the scope of the above recognition. The remaining claims against the above defendants and the claims against the defendant P, and H are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Gung-jin

Judges Park Jong-chul