logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.08.18 2017나2006984
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff A, which ordered payment, shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, are grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance.

(b)Paragraph 2) below (as shown in section 1, No. 3-

(c)Paragraph 2) below (as amended, No. 3-2):

C. 6) As set forth below (Article 3-4(d)(4) as follows, the attached table for calculation of damages in the judgment of the court of first instance “A” is as follows: “In addition to each modification, it is identical to the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance” under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Paragraph 2) Item 2 of this Article, Plaintiff A, among golf games, may take place in a direction that is not anticipated to have friendship with others. As such, the running of the same Article would not go ahead of the top, when the running of the same Article lives into a live line.

In particular, F was well aware of the fact that F was the first golf reporter from the golf course to F, and F was doing drinking on that day, and F was doing the game, and 11 holes prior to the instant accident, it was extremely right to the right.

(C) Facts that there is no dispute, witness E of the first instance trial, etc.). Therefore, in preparation for a case where F is unable to properly maintain public order, F should move F to FF post before leaving the public order and have secured its own safety, but F was negligent in neglecting this and at the same time, F was in the vicinity of the right right angle.

Plaintiff

A’s negligence was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, but it was not sufficient to exempt the Defendants from their liability, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion of exemption from liability is rejected.

However, this shall be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendants, and the liability of the Defendants shall be limited to 50% in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case as seen earlier.

The plaintiffs shall apply F's theory of negligence on the part of the victim.

arrow