beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On July 7, 2013, at a restaurant operated by Defendant B on July 7, 2013, the Plaintiff suffered an accident where the knive bones of the bones, which was in food, was stuffed in gring (hereinafter “instant accident”).
나. 이 사건 사고발생 후 원고는 얼굴의 좌측 볼부터 좌측 턱 아래까지 마취가 되고 부어 있는 느낌을 받고, 텁텁하고 둔한 느낌에 세수를 하거나 음식물을 씹을 때 통증을 느끼고 있다.
The diagnosis result of the plaintiff's symptoms is the left-hand trine, the sub-pathal, the sub-pathal, the sub-pathal disorder.
C. As to the instant accident, Defendant B is liable for damages caused by negligence in violation of the duty to provide safe food to customers as a restaurant operator, and Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd is liable as a business liability insurer of Defendant B.
The Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 11 million as part of the lost income to the Defendants, and KRW 10 million as consolation money.
2. The sole evidence of the judgment, the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff's presentation alone does not indicate what there was negligence on the part of the defendant B, who is the restaurant owner selling the verted Sea Country (it is inevitable that there exists the bones assistance in the verting Sea Country, so the customers must pay attention to the defendant B. Thus, if the defendant B did not violate other duty of care, the mere fact that the defendant B suffered bodily harm by the bones assistance cannot be held liable to the defendant B, the restaurant owner merely because he did not have any other duty of care). In addition, according to the result of the court's physical appraisal entrustment of the head of the Asia University Hospital in this Court, the disability alleged by the plaintiff cannot be caused by an accident where the bones assistance in the verting Sea would be imminent in melting, and thus the causal relationship between the accident in this case and the plaintiff'
3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed on the ground that it does not need to examine the amount of damages.