The case holding that in a case where: (a) a person who was a manager in charge of the large-scale store, used a ice and moved to the first floor above the ground floor of the shopping theater operated by Company A while the electric wheelchairs of Company B were on the front of Company B, and the electric wheelchairs of Company A were faced with the electric wheelchairs of Company B, and the electric wheelchairs of Company C, which were faced with the end of the ice-free workshop; and (b) under the circumstance that the electric wheelchairs and shopping liftss were not faced with the end of the ice-free workshop, Company A lost balance in the course of getting out through a narrow space above the second floor above the ground floor; and (c) in a case where Company A was injured by negligence, due to failure to perform his duty of safety consideration, as the person in charge of the management of the large-scale store, the company is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by Company A due to negligence.

In a case where Gap used a ice-free workshop which contains food in a shopping mall at the first floor store operated by Eul corporation, and moved to the first floor above the ground (contest type device designed for the convenience of movement in slope ways, etc.), Gap's electric wheelchairs before Byung suffered from the end of the ice-free workshop, and Gap's electric wheelchairs and Byung's electric wheelchairs suffered from the end of the ice-free workshop, and where Gap's electric wheelchairs and shopping nets do not go to the end of the ice-free workshop, the case holding that Eul company has the duty of care to safely provide safe boarding and remove employees who are in charge of safe boarding and using the wheelchairs in order for customers to be able to freely use each floor as the main agent of safety management, and thus Gap has the duty of care to inform Gap of the safety boarding and using the ice-free equipment, and thus Gap's employees are not obliged to provide safe boarding and operating employees with safe boarding and operating equipment. The case holding that Eul company has the duty of care to inform Gap of the safety boarding and operating equipment.

Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act, Article 16 of the Safety Management of Elevator Facilities Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Go-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Emart Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Byung-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Da510509 Decided June 22, 2016

April 26, 2017

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs against the defendant corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1 9,564,936, and 2,00,000 won to Plaintiff 2, as well as 15% interest per annum from January 20, 2015 to June 21, 2017, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals against the defendant are dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation cost incurred between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant, 2/3 shall be borne by the plaintiff 1; the remainder by the defendant; the 6/7 of the total litigation cost incurred between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant shall be borne by the plaintiff 2; and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 33,234,492, KRW 15,000,00 and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 2 from January 20, 2015 to the service date of a duplicate of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case and the cause of the claim of this case, and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff claimed this money from the first instance court as damages for a tort due to the violation of the obligation to pay safety consideration, but this court selected the claim for damages for tort due to defects in the installation and preservation of the structure).

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

1) The Defendant is a juristic person established for the main business purpose of large-scale discount business management, sales business of essential daily necessities, etc., and establishes and operates a large discount store with the trade name of “matet” across the country. The Defendant is operating the “matet ○○○○○” on the 7th floor in Gwangju Southern-gu and the 1st basement in the underground floor from July 19, 207 to July 19, 2007.

2) On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff 1 was a person who was involved in an accident while using ice at Eart ○○○○, and Plaintiff 2 is the spouse of Plaintiff 1.

(b) Occurrence of an accident;

1) On January 20, 2015, at around 14:40 to 15:00, Plaintiff 1 included food in shopping bags kept by the Defendant for customers at the 1st floor food store underground of the e-mail ○○○○ store, and moved to the first floor of the ground by using ice ice cream (contested machine designed for the convenience of movement in slope ways, etc., hereinafter “instant ice cream”).

2) At the front of Plaintiff 1, there was a woman boarding the electric wheelchairs, but around the time when the above female reached almost the first floor of the ground following the movement of ice-free workshops, the wheels of the electric wheelchairs cannot move out to the upper floor above the top floor of the ground level.

3) According to the continuous progress of the instant ice Works, Plaintiff 1 had access to the front wheelchairs after the front chairs. After all, Plaintiff 1’s shopping manual and electric wheelchairs were faced with the last part of the ice Work, and the instant ice project continued to progress, but Plaintiff 1’s electric wheelchairs and shopping lifts continued to go beyond the first floor above the ground floor. However, Plaintiff 1 attempted to go out through a narrow space adjacent to the shopping manual, and in the process, Plaintiff 1 went out of the front wheelchairs in the future, and came to go beyond the first floor above the ground floor (hereinafter “instant accident”).

4) immediately after the accident of this case, Plaintiff 1 sleeped a pain on the upper half of the chest and the right side of the chest, but determined that it was minor and determined that the purchased goods were settled at around 15:05 on the same day, and notified the employee in charge of Empt ○○, who was in charge of Empt ○, of the details

5) From January 21, 2015, the day following the instant accident, Plaintiff 1 saw a pain on the right upper part of the center of the instant accident, and received a pain treatment at △△ Hospital located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju. On February 25, 2015, Plaintiff 1 visited the vertebrate Hospital Hospital Hospital in △△ University, to undergo a diagnosis of vertebrate electric shock, and received a vertecopic vertebrate on March 19, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number if there is a serial number), Eul evidence No. 2

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Defendant is an operator of a large-scale large-scale store with a duty of care to manage internal and external facilities, etc. in the store so that customers may use facilities safely. The marina ○○○ store does not have an elevator for customers to freely use the facilities from the first to the first floor above the ground without calling out the facilities. The possibility of using ice-free workshops was high when the wheel wheeler moves from the 1st floor food store above the ground to the first floor above the ground. In addition, the Defendant was aware in advance that there was a risk of an accident if the wheel wheeler uses a ice, not an elevator, instead of an elevator.

2) The Defendant, as a safety manager of users, shall install an elevator freely available to customers, and has the duty to place safety guards or to provide safety instruction to enable passengers on the electric wheelchairs to board the ice, so that they may not board the ice, at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident. At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant left passengers on the electric wheelchairs, leaving them use the ice, and did not take appropriate measures even after the electric wheelchairs suffered from the ice. Since the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the duty to take safety consideration as above, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident

3) Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to 3,234,492 won in total for Plaintiff 1 (the treatment cost of KRW 7,984,492 + KRW 250,000 + solatium of KRW 25,000 + KRW 25,00,000), as for Plaintiff 2, who was the wife of Plaintiff 1, the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to consolation money of KRW 15,00,000 and delay damages for each of the said money.

B. Defendant’s assertion

At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, there was no functional or mechanical defect in the instant accident, and Article 22 of the Guidelines for Inspection and Management of Elevators is a user’s duty provision. As such, the Defendant does not have a duty to prevent passengers aboard the front wheelchairs from getting on the front wheelchairs in response to the user’s duty provision. The Defendant attached an automatic door of the first floor, a manual for boarding passengers and a manual for guiding passengers to get off the ground floor and the underground floor through the elevator, while the electric wheelchairs installed a physical and human system for the use of the elevator of passengers aboard the front wheelchairs, and thus, the Defendant fulfilled its duty of safety consideration at the time of the instant accident.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) In the case of a large store, such as the e-mail ○○○ store in which the instant accident occurred, various kinds of goods, such as food, clothing, and household appliances, as well as various facilities, such as restaurants, travel agencies, and laundry, are installed, and a large number of people have access to the store and frequent movement in the store. Accordingly, the operator of a large store, such as the Defendant, bears the duty of safety care to manage facilities inside and outside the store and protect customers from various risks that may occur in the store so that customers can safely use the facility.

2) The following facts and circumstances are considered in light of the following facts and the results of the 2nd reproduction of CCTV images recorded on the surface of the scene at the time of the accident, as follows: (a) the results of the on-site inspection of the first instance court, based on the results of the on-site verification of the “ice workout file” as referred to in subparagraph 4; and (b) the overall purport of each inquiry reply to the Ministry of Public Safety and Security, the Ministry of Health and Security, and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, as a whole: (c) the instant accident is acknowledged to have occurred due to negligence so that the Defendant, as safety management subject, installs an elevator capable of freely using each floor in moving, or manages the store and outside facilities so that he/she can safely use the store facilities, including ice workshops; and (d) the electrical wheelchairs installed employees in charge of safety so that the passengers do not board the ice, or neglected to assign or guide

① There is a entrance at the e-mail ○○○ point run by the Defendant, and the side, other than the main entrance, is practically impossible to access the electric wheelchairs due to stairs and remote slopes, and is accessible through the main entrance. When entering the e-mail ○○○○ floor through the main entrance, there is a calculating unit and store on the left side, and the customer’s elevator is installed on the right side, and the customer’s elevator is located outside the store and the calculation unit. In addition, food store is located on the first floor above the e-mail ○○○○○, and there is no calculation cost on the underground floor, and the calculation cost is located on the 1st and the second floor above the ground.

② A ice hold room is installed on each floor, and a general customer may freely move from the first floor to the ground floor, using a ice hold room. In the vicinity of the entrance of the first floor above the ground, an elevator for customers is installed. The inside of the elevator is installed with no one story below the ground level, and only the first floor to the seventh floor above the ground level. If a general customer wishes to move by using an elevator from the first floor above the ground level to the first floor above the ground level, he/she may remove the staff in charge of the elevator belonging to the security team from the emergency call equipment installed in the front of the elevator to the first floor below the first floor above the said employee may operate the elevator with the first floor above the ground level. If a person intends to move by using an elevator from the first floor above the first floor above the ground level, he/she may open the inside equipment installed in the front of the elevator and operate the elevator with the first floor above the first floor above the passage. When a person starts using the elevator to the first floor above the ground level, he/she shall use the same passage.

(3) In order for the electric wheelchairs passengers to use the food store of the first floor above the ground, as seen earlier, the employees in charge of the elevator room above the first floor above the ground level to call out, operate the inside of the elevator with manual operating the inside of the first floor above the ground level, and use the food store above the passage in which the warehouse loaded with the goods is installed. After the use of the food store is completed, the employees in charge are released again after the completion of the use of the food store, and the employees in charge are moved back to the first floor above the ground level using the elevator again through the passage above the warehouse. However, since the elevators for the customers are located outside of the store, the calculation unit of the inside the store shall be used along with the employees in charge, and then the calculation unit

④ On the side of an elevator installed near the entrance of the first floor above the ground room, the phrase “I will operate only the first to seventh floor.” The phrase “I will use the elevator for disabled persons” is written in small size, and the elevator door includes the phrase “I will use the safe elevator.” Since the phrase “I will use the safe elevator” is written in the elevator door, the elevator door is likely to cause safety accidents at the time of using a ice and breast-styler, it is written that I will request I will board the elevator. On the side of the warehouse entrance which should pass after the use of the elevator on the first floor above the ground, the phrase “I will operate only the first to seventh floor,” but the phrase “I will not separately state that the elevator is inside the passage.”

⑤ Ordinary customers seem to have a big difficulty in purchasing, using, and calculating food on the ground floor using ices, baby carriages, etc. However, customers using wheelchairss, baby carriages, etc. are likely to use ice-free workshops instead of using elevators, because they have substantial difficulties and inconvenience in purchasing, moving, and calculating goods using elevators in the same manner as that in subparagraph B, paragraph B, (3) is likely to use ice-free workshops.

(6) On the other hand, Article 22 of the Guidelines for Management of Inspection and Management of Elevators of No. 2015-1 of the Ministry of Public Safety and Security provides that “Escopers (including a ice workshop) users shall observe the following matters for the safe operation of elevators and the prevention of accidents. On the other hand, excursion vehicles, etc. shall be in contact with each other and shall not be loaded, but they shall not be loaded: Provided, That the same shall not apply where a special structure is installed so as to be loaded in Escopers.” According to the foregoing provision, customers using electric wheelchairs who are not installed with a special structure that makes it possible to load in ice work shall not use the ice work of this case. The above provision appears to be aimed at restricting the use of ice, because electric wheelchairs, etc. are loaded in a slope facility like the ice work of this case, if they are loaded in the ice facility, and there is a danger that the passengers as well as persons in their surroundings are different:

7) At the entrance of each floor, and near the elevator, the Defendant attached a warning phrase to the effect that “if the wheelchairs passengers use ices, they may endanger them,” and installed an emergency call device, etc. to provide the staff in charge of the elevator. This measure seems to be due to the Defendant’s prior recognition of the risk as above and the possibility of the occurrence of the accident in the event the coal chairs users use ices, other than the elevator.

8) Among the contents of information broadcasts repeatedly conducted in the ice workshop, it includes the purport that, if the back wheels of the shopping library walked at the end of the ice hold, a little force should be given so that they do not face with the front and the rear. This requires attention because, even for ordinary customers who use without any restriction on ice hold, there is a risk that shopping bags may walk at the end of the ice hold, and it seems that the risk is higher than the ordinary customers if wheel chairs that are not free, are used by passengers on board.

9) Since the instant ice workshop should be used together with shopping liftss, it was in the state of not installing entry prevention bars that restrict the boarding of electric wheelchairss, etc.. The Defendant did not limit the use of electric wheelchairss in the vicinity of the ice Work that connects the first floor and the first floor above the ground, nor did the employees in charge of safety management who aid the safe use thereof.

In light of the location and structure of the instant marina, the means of movement by each floor, methods, guidance and convenience for their use, the details of restrictions on boarding and taking measures, etc. as seen earlier, in the instant marina operated by the Defendant, despite the fact that the customer using the electric wheelchairs wants to move between the first floor and the first floor above the ground, he was not allowed to board a ice hold a ice hold, and the Defendant was aware in advance that there was a risk of an accident due to the customer’s use of ice, which is not an elevator. The Defendant, as the safety manager of the user, installed an elevator freely available in moving each floor, managed the store and outside facilities in order to ensure the safe use of facilities in the store including ice hold a ice, managed the employees in charge of safety, or provided safety guidance to ensure that the passengers on the electric wheelchairs do not board a ice, but at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant left the front wheelchairs at the time of the instant accident and caused the risks of the customer using the ice to use the ice at the time of the accident.

The direct cause provider of the instant accident is a customer who embarks on a electric wheel chairs, the passengers of which are restricted in boarding in the ice workshop. The Defendant also is a person responsible for the management of the eart ○○ store, the place of the instant accident, and is obliged to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred by the negligence that failed to perform the duty of safety consideration.

B. Limitation of liability for damages

Although the instant accident occurred due to negligence that the Defendant neglected the duty of safety consideration, Plaintiff 1 appears to have been aged 7 years at the time of the instant accident, and the previous spine-related treatment is expected to have been taken. The instant accident is limited to 70% of the Defendant’s liability for the instant accident in light of the background and degree of the accident, and the number of persons, possibility, etc. presumed to have contributed to the damage in accordance with the principle of fair sharing of the damage, as seen earlier, in the event that Plaintiff 1 was unable to move from the end of the instant accident, in the process that Plaintiff 1 went away from the ice ice work in the course of going out through the narrow space adjacent to the shopping tape.

C. Scope of liability for damages

1) Medical expenses

A) Medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff 1

According to the evidence No. 4-1, 6-14, and 14, Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 7,944,32 in total for medical expenses and operation expenses at △△ Hospital and △ University Hospital due to the instant accident. According to the evidence No. 4-2 and 3, Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 17,900 for internal and internal and internal expenses on March 5, 2015 at △ University Hospital, and KRW 22,260 for internal and internal expenses on March 5, 2015, although it is recognized that Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 22,260 for the instant medical expenses, it is irrelevant to the verteballum cronology that Plaintiff 1 suffered due to the instant accident. Therefore, the part of the above medical expenses for which Plaintiffs sought payment is without merit.

B) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of deduction of the Corporation charges

The defendant asserts that the Corporation's charges should be deducted from the medical fees for which the plaintiffs seek payment.

Where a victim who has received insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act claims for damages against a third party, if the victim's negligence conflicts with the cause of the damage, and if there is any evidence of stimulation, the insurance benefits shall be deducted from the amount of damage calculated first, and then the victim shall be deducted from the amount of damage. In addition, when the victim has received the insurance benefits under the National Health Insurance Act due to a third party's tort, the victim's claim for damages against the third party shall be transferred to the National Health Insurance Corporation within the scope of the amount of benefits, and the Health Insurance Corporation has subrogated the damage claim against the perpetrator against the third party, and thus the Health Insurance Corporation has the right to claim for damages against the third party shall be reduced within the scope of the amount (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da50149, Dec. 26, 2002; 2010Da13732, Jul. 8, 2010, etc.).

According to the evidence No. 4-1, 4, 6, and 14, the details of the principal's charges and the Corporation's charges out of the medical expenses paid by Plaintiff 1, and the medical expenses for which the plaintiffs sought to pay to the defendant are as follows.

A. 1: 4-1: 6,93; 4.4: 6, 65; 65; 65; 6.45; 2. 4. 5; 2. 4. 5: 6, 205; 3. 4. 5; 2. 4. 5; 4. 5; 2. 5; 4. 5; 4. 5; 2. 5; 4. 5; 4. 5; 4. 5; 4. 5; 4. 5; 2. 45; 4. 5; 4. 5; 2. 5, 205; 5. 15; 40; 5. 4. 5, 205; 4. 5. 5, 2015; 4. 5. 5. 5. 7. 204

In light of the above legal principles, the total medical expenses to be borne by the Defendants are KRW 11,847,986 (=the Plaintiff’s charge of KRW 7,944,32 + the Corporation’s charge of KRW 3,903,654). Based on the Defendant’s liability ratio of KRW 8,293,590 (=11,847,986 x 0.7).

However, this case constitutes a case where insurance benefits were received due to a third party's illegal act in accordance with the National Health Insurance Act, and thus, the National Health Insurance Corporation's right to claim compensation for medical expenses of KRW 3,903,654 borne by the National Health Insurance Corporation among the right to claim compensation for medical expenses for the defendant

Therefore, the right to claim compensation for remaining medical expenses against Plaintiff 1 is within the scope of KRW 4,389,936 of the remaining medical expenses (i.e., KRW 8,293,590 - KRW 3,903,654 of the total medical expenses under the limitation of liability deducting KRW 3,903,654, the part acquired by subrogation and transferred by the National Health Insurance Corporation, from the total medical expenses under the limitation of liability.

Ultimately, the amount of damages for the medical expenses that the plaintiffs can claim to the defendant due to the accident of this case is KRW 4,389,936, and the defendant's assertion is reasonable within the above scope of recognition.

2) Aid and relief expenses

According to Gap evidence No. 4-5, the plaintiff 1 paid 250,000 won as purchase cost of spine vertebrate, and the amount calculated as 70% of the defendant's liability ratio is 175,000 won (=250,000 won x 0.7). Thus, the defendant's subsidization subsidization cost to be paid to plaintiff 1 is 175,000 won.

3) Consolation money

The amount of consolation money to be paid by the Defendant shall be determined as KRW 15,00,000, and KRW 22,000,000, in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the background and result of the injury suffered by Plaintiff 1, as well as the treatment contents and the progress after treatment, the Plaintiffs’ age, and family relations.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 1 the damages amounting to KRW 9,564,936 (the medical expenses + KRW 175,000 + solatium 5,00,000 + damages amounting to KRW 2,00,000) and damages amounting to KRW 2,00,000, which is the date of the instant accident, to the Plaintiff 2, as to whether or not the Defendant is liable to pay damages amounting to KRW 9,564,936 (i.e., medical expenses + KRW 175,00 + damages amounting to KRW 2,00,00,000, which is the date of the instant accident, until June 21, 2017, which is the date of the instant court’s ruling, to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as to the

4. Omission of determination on claims for damages caused by defects in the installation and preservation of structures

The plaintiffs' assertion has caused the accident of this case due to negligence by the defendant, who is the installer and keeper of the ice Work of this case, neglected the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms, and the defendant is obliged to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case caused by the defect in the installation and preservation of the ice Work of this case. In addition, as seen above, it is necessary to additionally determine the part of the plaintiffs' claim for damages due to the violation of the duty to protect safety, and to determine the selective claim for the dismissed part. However, even if the liability for damages due to selective claim is recognized, the claim exceeding the above cited scope is not allowed for the same reason, and no further

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims shall be dismissed without merit. Since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs as to the above recognition amount is unfair with different conclusions, the above amount shall be revoked, the defendant shall be ordered to pay the above amount, and the remaining appeal against the plaintiffs against the defendant shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Tae-ho (Presiding Judge)