201Adembal 29649 damages (ar)

August 23, 2013

August 30, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 68,654,559 won with 5% interest per annum from November 27, 2010 to the service date of a copy of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is operating a bath in the name of "00 Mana" in Daegu Nam-dong (hereinafter referred to as "the bath of this case").

B. On November 27, 2010, the Plaintiff received treatment at “00 hospitals,” etc. in the vicinity of the instant bath (hereinafter “the instant bath”).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the occurrence of liability for damages

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that although the defendant had a duty of care to manage the public bath while managing the public bath so that customers do not sleep, the plaintiff did not remove the non-sprinks and the taxation used at the preceding cleaning time, and caused the plaintiff to suffer bodily injury by being sprinked in the vicinity of the bathing entrance.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that there was no proteitation on the floor at the time of the instant accident, and that there was no system remaining.

B. Determination

앞서 살펴본 바와 같이, 원고가 이 사건 목욕탕 바닥에 넘어져 다친 사실은 인정되나, 갑제6호증의 영상(가지번호 포함), 증인 이▣▣, 서의 각 진술, 이 법원의 현장검증결과 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들을 종합할 때, 위 인정사실만으로는 피고의 과실을 인정하기 어렵다.

① It is difficult to deem that the instant bath is a stone of the materials that it was floored, and thus, it is difficult to view that the public bath operator has no other safety to be equipped with the bath. ② The operator of the public bath is obligated to manage the business management facilities and equipment in a sanitary and safe manner so as not to cause any harm to the health of its users and to take account of the safety of customers. However, the duty of the operator of the public bath is to bear within the scope of normally expected level in light of the facility standard of the general public bath and the method of use. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the operator has a duty to continuously observe the inside of the public bath and check whether the public bath does not have any non-refient or not.

③ Since the instant bath begins to run business around 05:00, the instant accident occurred as long as it occurred after the commencement of business, and there was no number of customers at the time, and there was only one shower in front of the entrance door, and it is difficult to deem that there was a large quantity of bits at the point of occurrence of the accident.

④ The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant failed to remove the taxation used at the time of cleaning the preceding day, but the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed-term