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. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the arguments as a result of the inquiry of the facts as to the so-called “St.” Nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, and 17, and the court of first instance on the so-called “St.”
On January 22, 2010, at around 20:10, the Defendant: (a) took a skiing Do-do Do-do Do-si Do-si Do-si Do-si Do-ri 23-1, along with ski Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri Do-ri, and the Plaintiff took a skiing from the same perspective; (b) while the Defendant took a skiing in front of the Plaintiff’s proceeding, the Defendant’s Ski Do-ri and the Plaintiff’s Ski Do-ri
The Plaintiff, by the instant accident, was treated in a prison, etc., from around February 2, 2010, by suffering from a satise satis, the right satisfy, to the right satisfy.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts finding that liability for damages was established, the defendant neglected his duty of care to safely examine the front side and the left and right in the process of taking a skiing, and incurred the plaintiff's injury as a result of the collision between the defendant's skiing test and the plaintiff's skiing ground and the plaintiff's skiing ground. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.
(1) The defendant argues that there is no negligence in relation to the accident of this case since the plaintiff was proceeding at the defendant's front side and the person in the back side in the case of skiing had the duty of care to proceed with damage to the person in the front side. However, while the plaintiff and the defendant are proceeding in a different direction from each other, the fact that the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff and the defendant are travelling in the opposite direction is the same as that mentioned above,
However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff and the defendant respectively skiing.