logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.09.29 2014가단30010
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person with a class 1 disability in the field of non-functional disability.

On December 8, 201, 201, C, an assistant of the incorporated association B (hereinafter “instant incorporated association”), made soup to the Plaintiff, while making soup to the Plaintiff, C, an assistant of the incorporated association (hereinafter “instant incorporated association”), had the Plaintiff her ambbbbbbbbbs part of the Plaintiff’s ambuck and her ambbbbbbbbbs part

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On March 23, 2011, the instant incorporated association entered into a contract with the Defendant for care and welfare liability insurance (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the content that the instant incorporated association and its employees would receive compensation from the Defendant, for damages to be borne by the third party due to the negligent accidents attributable to the instant incorporated association and its employees (i.e., the insurance period from March 23, 201 to January 31, 2012; hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

C. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant received the power of attorney from C after the instant accident, and filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff to the effect that “The Defendant’s liability for damages does not exceed KRW 5,385,408,” with the purport that “C shall not exceed KRW 5,385,408,” and the Plaintiff filed a counterclaim with the purport that “C shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 26.965,360.”

[Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant accident is KRW 15,765,360,360 in total, and KRW 11,035,752 in total, 15,000 in total, KRW 15,035,752 in total, and KRW 15,000 in total, KRW 15,035,752 near 20,752, and KRW 15,035,752 in total, and KRW 15,000 in total, in consideration of all the circumstances asserted by C, a settlement recommendation was made on December 17, 2015. The said decision became conclusive on January 5, 2016.

[Based on recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul's testimony, and fact-finding with respect to the head of the full-time Gu of this Court, the result of the fact-finding.

arrow