logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.01.29 2015나1060
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 201, Plaintiff A purchased a single-name “G” sports organization (hereinafter “instant G”) manufactured and sold by the Defendant through Internet shopping mall, and directly assembled it and used it with his family at his own house for a period of one month.

B. At around 22:30 on September 17, 201, Plaintiff A was involved in an accident that fells into the floor as it fell from the support unit of the instant G while using the instant G (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as the closure of the instant accident, damage to the size of the flag and the flag, and the flag, etc., and was determined as a second degree disability in the state of delay (non-functional) in which he/she can move at the two legs.

Plaintiff

B is the husband of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff C and D are the children of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 3, 4-1, 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiffs' accident of this case occurred due to the defects that the plaintiff A used in the normal area of this case while the plaintiff A used the G of this case, which occurred due to the defects that the plaintiff A did not properly catched the plaintiff's item. Since this occurred in the exclusive control area of the defendant, who is the manufacturer, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case. 2) The accident of this case of this case of this case was arbitrarily dismantled from the first safety device of this case at the plaintiffs, and it was caused due to the fact that the plaintiff A did not use the 2 and 3 safeguards properly, and it was caused due to the fact that the plaintiff A did not use the 2 and 3 safeguards properly, and it is not an accident that occurred in the exclusive control area of the defendant, and as the plaintiff A was negligent in the accident of this case, the defendant is not liable

B. 1) A Manufacturers manufacturing and selling goods, such as relevant legal principles, are those products.

arrow