1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 11:20 on February 16, 2015, the Defendant, a coverer, loaded goods purchased at the facility near the D gas station located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, onto the steel scrap shopping car, and stored the shopping cart in order to put them into the parking lot.

B. If the Plaintiff ceased to stop prior to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was scambling and distributed scam on the front part of the shopping cart that the Defendant was pushing ahead and received the diagnosis of injury, such as scambling, scamton, and scamponsing scam, etc., and was hospitalized for 33 days due to scambane pains, etc.

C. The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 on account of the facts charged against the Plaintiff’s injury caused by negligence (Seoul District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 1328) and the continuation of the appellate trial.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition of the occurrence of damages liability, it is reasonable to view that the defendant who carried goods in a shopping car had a duty of care to safely proceed with the sale of goods in a manner that does not conflict with other shopping customers by neglecting his duty of care while neglecting the duty of care and neglecting the duty of care, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer bodily injury, such as the sale of goods, etc., by neglecting the duty of care. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

However, the defendant's liability is limited to 60% in consideration of the following factors: (a) the course and degree of the instant accident; (b) the degree of shock; and (c) the Plaintiff’s ability to receive medical treatment as an injury-disease; (d) the Plaintiff appears to have never existed; and (e) in the case of an expansion of sloping signboards listed in the injury diagnosis statement, the Plaintiff's qualitative factors were generally considered as a sloping disease; and (e) the Plaintiff's ability to receive medical treatment was somewhat long-term in light of the Plaintiff

3. Scope of damages.

(a) property damage (1) lost loss;