2019Na13803 Compensation for damages

Gambling Plaintiff (20 second half, South)

Ulsan (Ulsan)

Attorney Park Jae-soo

Head of business

Ulsan (Ulsan)

Law Firm Doz.

Ulsan District Court Decision 2018Gadan66359 Decided July 10, 2019

September 24, 2020

November 26, 2020

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be dismissed

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 11,572,682 won and 5,000,000 won among them, 5% per annum from August 3, 2018 to November 26, 2019 to the remaining 6,572,682 won, and 5% per annum from July 11, 2019 to the date of full payment and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the Plaintiff’s total litigation costs against the Defendant, 80% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

(a) 20,000,000 won and its 20,000% per annum from August 3, 2018 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the day following that to the day of complete payment;

B. 35,246,702 and interest thereon shall be paid at a rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day of the pronouncement of the instant judgment to the day of full payment.

(The first instance judgment became final and conclusive with respect to the negligence of co-defendants in the first instance.)

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed (the appeal is dismissed

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant completed the business registration of the mother's main office located in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter referred to as the "main office of this case") and operates the main office after employing the co-defendant's negligence in the first instance trial.

나. 원고는 2018. 8. 2. 21:00경 회사 동료 4명과 함께 이 사건 주점을 방문하였는데, 위 주점의 종업원 공과실은 원고의 생일을 축하하기 위하여 '불쇼 이벤트'를 하여 달라는 원고 일행의 부탁을 받고 위 일행들에게 테이블에 칵테일 잔을 거꾸로 세워 2층으로 탑을 쌓고 최상단의 잔에 양주(깔루아와 코인트루)를 부은 후 불을 붙이고 그 위에 알코올 도수가 높은 양주인 바카디(70도)를 부어 위 술이 흘러내리면서 넘친 술에 불이 붙은 상태로 폭포수 같이 흘러내리는 불쇼 이벤트(이하 '이 사건 이벤트'라 한다)를 하면서 위 바카디 양주를 칵테일 잔에 따를 때 불꽃이 양주병 안으로 유입되어 알코올이 가열되면서 그 압력으로 약 1m의 불꽃이 뿜어져 나와 위 이벤트를 가까이에서 지켜보던 원고의 얼굴에 옮겨 붙게 하였다(이하 '이 사건 사고'라 한다). 이로 인하여 원고는 약 26일간의 치료가 필요한 머리 및 목의 심재성 2도 화상, 머리, 얼굴, 목, 손목 및 손의 여러 부위에 2도 화상의 상해를 입었다.다. 이 사건 사고와 관련하여, 공과실은 2019. 8. 13. 울산지방법원에서 과실치상죄로 벌금 500만 원을 선고받아 그 무렵 위 형이 확정되었다(울산지방법원 2019고정370호), [인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1, 2, 6호증(각 가지번호 있는 것은 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Recognition of liability for damages

According to the above facts, since the negligence of this case may cause a fire while conducting the event of this case, it is likely that the safety accident might be prevented by installing a blocking, etc. and the customers scambling it might wear a scam with a scam for their own view. Thus, the accident of this case occurred by neglecting the duty of care to allow the plaintiff to view at a certain distance. The public negligence is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as a direct tortfeasor, and the defendant is jointly liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the negligence as a user of the public negligence in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Limitation on liability

However, in light of the above facts and evidence Nos. 9 as a whole, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleading, namely, the negligence was requested from Plaintiff Hah-ju to proceed with the event of the event on behalf of the Plaintiff, and this case was proceeded. The Plaintiff was seated at a distance of about 40 to 50 cm from strings where the event in this case was in progress, while the Plaintiff Hah-ju was on the other hand at a distance of about 3 meters away from 3 meters, it can be predicted that there was a risk of suffering from images in the event of progress of the show at close distance, and thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the Plaintiff’s own fault was responsible for the Plaintiff’s failure to pay compensation for the damages due to the Defendant’s failure to pay compensation for the damages due to the accident in the process of conducting the show at a distance of distance from the above table or with the Plaintiff Hah-man.

3. Scope of liability for damages

The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case caused property damage of KRW 31,213,732 and KRW 4,032,970 in total, KRW 35,246,70 in total, and KRW 35,246,70 in total, and KRW 35,200 in total, and KRW 20,000 in property damage and delay damages in claim as to each of the above amounts.

A. The Plaintiff, as at the time of the instant accident, was hospitalized until August 27, 2018 due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was released from office until February 28, 2019. As such, the Plaintiff was retired from office until February 28, 2019, seeking payment of KRW 31,213,732 [the date of the instant accident” [the date of the instant accident: KRW 3,270,010, including the period of the said leave of absence (=3,270,010, 210, 210, 210, 000)] of the daily income for the period of 210 days, including the period of the said leave of absence.

According to the statements and images of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8, the Plaintiff was at the time of the instant accident. The Plaintiff was at the time of the instant accident, and was working as an employee at the S enterprise (hereinafter referred to as “S enterprise”); the Plaintiff received the wage of KRW 39,240,118 from the aforementioned company from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017; the Plaintiff was hospitalized at the mother department located in Ulsan-gu from August 2, 2018 to August 27, 2018; the Plaintiff was hospitalized at the outside department located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; the Plaintiff was discharged from the said hospital on August 1, 2018; the Plaintiff was at the same hospital on September 3, 19 of the same year; and the Plaintiff was at the outside session on November 28, 2018; and the Plaintiff applied for a video treatment from January 28, 2018 to December 28, 2018.

According to the above facts, 10% of the total period of hospitalization, including the period of hospitalization after the instant accident (from September 1, 2018 to September 1, 2018) is reasonable to determine the loss of labor capacity. However, with respect to the labor disability rate between February 28, 2019 after the discharge, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff actually retired from office after the discharge until February 28, 2019. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff was retired from office, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 8-1 and 2-1, the degree of injury of the Plaintiff recognized by the image of the Plaintiff, and the number of days of commuting treatment from August 201 to September 1, 2018, the number of days of treatment treatment after the Plaintiff’s discharge is more than seven times (after September 1, 2018, which recognized the loss of labor capacity of 100%) and there is no need to view that there is no need to manage the Plaintiff’s treatment environment, including treatment charges of 305, 261,5015.

Therefore, the Plaintiff recognized the loss of labor capacity by 100% between September 1, 2018 after the instant accident and recognized the actual monthly income of KRW 3,270,010 (=39,240,118 won/12 months, and less than KRW 39,240,118 won/12).

(b) Expenses for treatment: 4,032,970 won (Evidence A 5-2, 4). Limitation on liability: 90% of the defendant's responsibility;

(d) Condolence money;

1) Reasons for taking into account: Circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the developments leading up to the instant accident, the age and degree of negligence of the Plaintiff, and the degree and degree of injury

(ii) Amount recognized: 5,000,000 won;

E. Sub-committee

As for the damages, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,572,682 [1] [6,572,682 [1] [3,270,010 won per day + KRW 4,032,970 + KRW 90] + ② 5,000 consolation money] and KRW 5,00,000 among them] as damages, after the date of the instant accident, for the damages, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 11,572,682 from August 3, 2018 to the day after the date of the instant accident, which is the day following the date of the first instance judgment, to the day after July 1, 2019 to November 26, 2020, respectively, for damages for delay calculated by the following day of each of the following day after the date of the instant accident.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the above recognition amount among the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, the defendant's appeal is partially accepted, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the defendant'

The presiding judge, Ginjin

Judges Shin Jae-chul

Judge Bohn fever

* Reference: The first instance court shall respond to the plaintiff's complaint at no time to the defendant and the co-defendants of the first instance court.

It declares a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in favor of all of the plaintiff because the plaintiff did not submit a written statement (the nature of the judgment without pleading);

Since there is no substantial judgment, the above judgment shall not be attached.

Co-defendants' negligence in the first instance court shall not file an appeal, and as such, the judgment of the first instance shall become final and conclusive with respect to public negligence.

The defendant appealed and only the defendant is sentenced to this judgment.

The text of the judgment of the first instance shall be as follows.