(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.05.25 2015가단25917

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.05.25 2015가단25917

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,064,724 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 31, 2015 to May 25, 2017.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The fact that the Defendant is recognized is operating the “Adidice F store” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant store”) by leasing a building in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seongbuk-gu.

On July 31, 2015, at around 20:45, the Plaintiff: (a) opened the entrance of the instant store; (b) opened the door into the store; and (c) opened the door and the floor at which the door closed, the front and rear blue sturf was dried (hereinafter “instant accident”); and (d) took part in the flue string on August 1, 2015, the following day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, even if the entrance of the store of this case was installed and operated normally under the relevant laws and regulations, there was a possibility of accidents such as the accident of this case due to the difference between the entrance and the ground, and the defendant directly or by the owner of the building of this case, requested the owner of the building of this case to fill the gap between the entrance and the ground, to fill the gap between the entrance and the ground, to have the entrance operated in a tent, or to put the entrance up up on the door to open the entrance, and to take appropriate measures, to prevent safety accidents in advance, but there was negligence. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for property mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case, which occurred in the store of this case as the business owner who leased and operated the store of this case.

C. The defendant's assertion argues that since the entrance of the store of this case is normally installed and properly managed, there is no intention or negligence on the part of the defendant in relation to the entrance, and that it is entirely caused by the plaintiff's negligence.

However, as seen above, it is the possessor of the store of this case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.05.25 2015가단25917

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.5.25. 선고 2015가단25917 판결

-전주지방법원 2015.06.23 2014가단41140

-수원지방법원 2018.06.12 2016가단519207

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.15 2017노1309