logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.06.14 2015가단8359
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 4,141,184 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 23, 2014 to June 14, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2014, around 09:10 on December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was taking a bath at Asan-si C (hereinafter “instant bath”) located in Asan-si in the operation of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant bath”), and suffered damage to the surface and power lines of the lower-hand shoulder by getting out of the public bath entrance with water on the substitute’s floor quality, and going beyond it.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Defendant Matts Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with Defendant B, on April 29, 2014, that provides for liability for damages to a third party to be incurred due to the instant bathing incident from May 2, 2014 to May 2, 2015, within the limit of 30,000,000 won per person, for each third party.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant B suffered damages because the floor near the entrance of the bath in this case is a slick material, so the accident may occur. Thus, the defendant B is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the plaintiff as the insurer, since the defendant B neglected the duty of care to take appropriate safety measures, such as installing prevention facilities, posting a warning to prevent customers from slicking the floor, slicking the floor, and assigning a manager, etc.

B. The floor of the bath in this case’s assertion by the Defendants is the stone stone of materials that are not the slicking material. Although a notice on safety was installed at the place of the bath in this case, the Plaintiff was negligent in neglecting his duty of care for safety.

arrow