beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly combine the Plaintiff C with KRW 23,425,325, and KRW 29,002,581, and KRW 11,010,475.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff C is a child of 3 years of age at the time of the instant accident, and Plaintiff A and B are the parents of Plaintiff C. 2) Defendant D is a person in charge of management as “a performance-grade operator,” who is the delele Lease Management Group, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant store”), and Defendant E is the sales member of the instant store.
The store in this case is located in the H convenience store in the FVG G in Busan.
3) In the instant store, the instant store is washing brecing brecing with hot water installed at the above convenience store. As such, when transporting hot water, employees of the instant store have a duty of care to prevent safety accidents by using containers that may not be accumulated in the water, and by extremely moving to prevent heavy water from being faced with other people. Nevertheless, Defendant E had a duty of care to prevent accidents by neglecting the above duty of care on October 17, 2014, while being transported with hot water stored in a lided water container, Plaintiff C, who enters the said container and was transported with hot water from the container without lids, was faced with the said container, and any hot water contained in the said container was accumulated into the body of Plaintiff C. 4) The instant accident suffered by Plaintiff C’s image.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
B. According to the facts of recognition of Defendant E’s liability, Defendant E is liable for the damages of the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident, since Defendant E neglected to perform its duty of care despite the above duty of care. Thus, Defendant E is liable for compensating for the damages of the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident. 2) The relationship between Defendant D and his employee under Article 756 of the Civil Act recognizing Defendant D’s liability is not only general employment relationship.