beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 7,850,380, and Plaintiff B and C respectively; and (b) from September 14, 2013 to September 15, 2015, respectively.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G are the children of Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff C and B are the spouse of Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff C and B reside together with Plaintiff C. 2) around September 14, 2014, Plaintiff C and B suffered injury, such as the Plaintiff’s head, 2, 3, 3, and 5, while seated with Plaintiff C and B and waiting for food, in the restaurant of “J” operated by the Defendant located in Young-si Area I with the Plaintiff C and B, while waiting for food.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, and Gap evidence 12, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
B. As seen in the above 1) as seen in the above, the plaintiff A is liable to compensate the plaintiff A for damages caused by mental distress due to the difference in the number of days attached to the wall of the above restaurant, and it is clear in light of the empirical rule that the plaintiff C and B were suffering from mental distress due to the above accident while living together with the plaintiff A. Thus, the defendant, the possessor of the above restaurant, is liable to compensate the plaintiff A for damages caused by the plaintiff A, the plaintiff C and B due to mental distress due to the above defect in the preservation of the above structure, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff B for the amount equivalent to the medical expenses. However, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff B for the amount equivalent to the medical expenses, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the mother was caused by the accident in this case, and there is no other evidence to support this part of the claim in this part.
3. In addition, the plaintiffs D, E, F, and G suffered from mental pain due to the accident of this case, and the defendant paid the above plaintiffs' consolation fees.