logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.27 2013나58370
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part between Plaintiff A and Defendant D and G shall be modified as follows.

(1) Defendant D and G are F.

Reasons

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. The summary of the case is the case where: (a) the Plaintiff A and his parents, who is a sports center operated by Defendant D, and the Plaintiff B and C, their parents, were in progress with the “U” shooting match; and (b) the Plaintiff A, the participant of the Plaintiff A, while carrying out the shooting match; (c) the Plaintiff A, while taking part in the shooting match, took part in the shooting match; and (d) the Plaintiff A, the participant, was a minor son of Defendant K during the match, who was the other party to the sports center operated by Defendant I, the head was used by the Defendant J, the other party to the sports center operated by Defendant I, but the victim was injured due to the lack of proper emergency measures; and (d) the Plaintiff F and the Defendants were liable for damages based on joint tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act (the Plaintiff A1.18 million won, the Plaintiff B, the Plaintiff B, and the Plaintiff C10 million won, respectively) and the delay damages therefrom.

The judgment of the court of first instance accepted some of the plaintiffs' claims against F, Defendant D, and G (1.180 million won). The plaintiffs' remaining claims against F, Defendant D, and G and all of the claims against Defendant H, I, J, and K were dismissed. The part against F, Defendant D, and G lost against them, the plaintiffs filed an appeal against Defendant H, I, J, and K respectively.

(However, as F's petition of appeal is dismissed, the part of the plaintiffs' claim against F in the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive separately).

전제된 사실관계 【증거】갑1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 갑10에서 16, 갑18, 26, 30, 41, 71, 78, 79, 98, 117, 125, 을가3과 변론 전체의 취지 ⑴ 당사자 ㈎ 피고 D은 2009. 9. 1.부터 춘천시 Y에서 M체육관을 운영하다가 2011. 3. 이후 춘천시 L에서 N체육관을 운영하고 있고, 피고 H은 인천 계양구 R에서 S체육관을 운영하고 있다.

㈏ F은 부천시 원미구 O에서 P체육관을 운영하는 사람으로서 2006년 무렵부터 다음(Daum)에 'Q'라는 카페를 개설하여 70여 회 정도 아마추어 공개 스파링 등의...

arrow