logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.12.19 2016가단108139
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 115,497,436 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from May 25, 2014 to December 19, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 240,000 to the Defendant at the D activation located in Chungcheong C, and the Plaintiff, along with the Plaintiff E, engaged in crowdfunding flight experience by the Plaintiff affiliated with the Defendant.

B. E, after getting the Plaintiff to board a paraloga to experience in flight, pressured the Plaintiff’s et al. on the wind during the ground while landing on the ground. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as softening, damage to the plelle, pressure pressure, and so on, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the Plaintiff, such as softening, plelleing, and cutting down, etc. of the plehal plehion of the ple

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) The recognition of liability lies in the scope of the defendant's direction and supervision. The flight experience pilot in the flight experience team in the case of this case is deemed to have caused the accident of this case to be caused by a mistake that led to a fall of the body of the passengers and passengers by driving without properly understanding the direction of the wind and the topography by neglecting his duty of care to safely control and drive so as not to cause any injury even if the players who are engaged in the flight as the pilot of the pilot of the pilot-in flight do not fall or fall down during the flight.

Therefore, the defendant is the user of the above flight experience pilot, and is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case pursuant to Article 756 (1) of the Civil Act.

B. Limit of liability, however, the Defendant’s liability ratio is limited to 85% of the total amount of damages, taking into account the following: (a) the leisure craft, such as the parogle flight, contains any risk factor in the occurrence of an accident due to its nature, and the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of it at the time of boarding.

3...

arrow