beta
Text
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 cancelled.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. On December 6, 2012, at around 18:15, the Plaintiff suffered from the left-hand slopings by taking a water tank on the platform floor among the unloadings from the two-way stations of Seoul subway No. 4, which the Defendant managed and operated.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). Meanwhile, on the day of the instant accident, there was a snow or strong amount of 0.1m in the Seoul metropolitan area on the day of the instant accident.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 16 evidence, Eul 3 evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts, although the defendant has a duty of care to take measures to ensure that passengers, etc. using the facilities managed by the defendant can use such facilities safely, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred thereby, since he neglected to take such measures and caused the plaintiff to suffer the above injury.
C. However, the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire oral argument, namely, ① the snow volume or rainfall volume of the snow volume, which was made in Seoul area on the day of the instant accident, was about 0.1m, ② The time when the instant accident occurred, as many passengers around the time of their retirement, it seems difficult for the Defendant to find out the water booming daily body up to the seat of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance, and ③ as alleged by the Plaintiff, if the accident occurred on the day of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was done, but the Plaintiff was not able to pay more attention. ④ According to the video image on the occurrence of the instant accident, other passengers, other than the Plaintiff, cannot be seen as avoiding, experiencing, or getting out of the difficulty of walking due to the floor’s water condition, ⑤ there is no need for the Plaintiff to take out the passage without any particular passage, while the Plaintiff was able to walk in the future.