손해배상(기)
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a person who operates Dials Corporation (hereinafter “instant pents”) located in Dials in Palju City (hereinafter “Cials”).
On October 8, 2016, the Plaintiff, together with his family members, provided accommodation under 102 of this case.
B. At around 18:40 on the same day, the Plaintiff was trying to shower in the toilet No. 102 of the instant pentathy, and was faced with her mar, hand, hand, hand, knick, and her mar in the instant toilet No. 102, with the string of the three sides in the toilet was broken away from the bottom of the floor.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On October 8, 2016, the Plaintiff received emergency treatment at the Mangsan Hospital of the Incheon National University on October 8, 2016 due to the instant accident, and was hospitalized in the F Hospital located in Gwangju City from October 10 to October 19, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. 1) In full view of the evidence as above and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 9, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, 6, and 12 as the basis of liability, the accident of this case is that the plaintiff was separated from the wall surface in the front of the toilet screen, and the plaintiff was broken away from the wall surface, and immediately thereafter, the accident of this case was caused by the plaintiff's getting out of the toilet floor. The above detailed screen screen can be deemed to have a defect in the preservation of the structure, i.e., a defect in the safety to be ordinarily carried out. Thus, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the defect in the preservation (the defendant is the owner of the above three-dimensional screen, and even if the defendant did not neglect due care necessary for the prevention of damages pursuant to the proviso of Article 758(1) of the Civil Act.
In regard to this, the Defendant neglected the safety rules and the quality test of KS, and neglected the Defendant’s management duties.