logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.11 2018가단5089585
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation for the claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 Ghana1097847.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a golf club in Jincheon-gun (hereinafter “instant golf club”). The Defendant concluded a “E” with a golf game assistant (one-person) who belongs to the Plaintiff, with the insurance period from June 3, 2014 to June 3, 2015, to compensate for losses incurred by bearing legal liability for damages arising from an accident involving golf game assistant business in the golf facility.

B. On March 21, 2015, the F (hereinafter “victim”) visited the instant golf course with three parallels and carried out a golf game. During the course of Scar’s moving from 9 holes to 10 holes, the F was on board the back seat of the Kaart operated by D, and the said Kaart was on the back seat of the Kaart while falling off from the Kaart in the course of the process of driving the copon of the Kabbro section following the said 9 holes, resulting in an injury of her head on the road while falling off from the Kaart in the course of driving the Kabrop in the Kabro section. There was no two open wounds, such as brain gambling, external shock, and librodropsis, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant calculated the amount of damages for the victim as the total of KRW 6,051,721, in total of KRW 2,338,130, KRW 300, KRW 15,000, KRW 698,591, KRW 3,000, and KRW 6,051,721, and paid the victim KRW 5,30,000, KRW 300,000, around June 22, 2016.

The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff regarding the instant accident by Seoul Central District Court 2018Gaso1097847 against the Plaintiff for the payment of the indemnity amounting to KRW 1,590,000 (=5,300,000 x 30%) and damages for delay on February 2, 2018, asserting that the Plaintiff is liable for damages due to violation of the duty of safety consideration under Article 750 of the Civil Act, liability as an employer under Article 756 D of the Civil Act, liability as an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and the negligence ratio is at least 30%.

arrow