logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.08 2016가단520467
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant Gyeonggi-do: (a) KRW 46,881,453, Plaintiff B, and C respectively; and (b) on October 20, 2015, respectively, to Plaintiff A.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the party (1) Plaintiff A is a minor who was enrolled in the first half of the first grade of H elementary school located in G at the time of harmony as of October 20, 2015, and Plaintiff B and C is the parent of Plaintiff A.

(2) As of October 20, 2015, Defendant D was a person who was a son of the first grade 1 of H elementary school at H elementary school as of October 2015, Defendant E works as an assistant principal of the above elementary school, and Defendant F as the principal of the above elementary school, and Defendant Gyeonggi-do is a local government that established and operates the above elementary school.

B. (1) On October 20, 2015, H elementary school held a “traditional Culture Experience” event at the school lecture of the relevant school (hereinafter “instant event”) on the first-year parents’ public day (hereinafter “instant event”).

(2) If the above event installed a number of “experiencers” on the part of the school, the student was able to take part in each crop and experience in practical training in eight foots.

(3) Although Plaintiff A was included in the first half of the year year 1, while moving to practical training, one of the experience coaches was fluor, and he was fluored at the next Corner, she was fluored with smelling water in the right bucks of Plaintiff A’s right bucks, and Plaintiff A was fluored into the right bucks of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff A suffered pictures of 203 degrees 2 and 3 on the bucks and the lower bucks.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9 through 17 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's entry in the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Defendant D has a high level of duty of care to guide and control, and to guide, in advance, so as not to have any dangerous goods or devices installed in the place where the study takes place, in mind that the young students of the class in charge are under his full control and are not able to control, with due care, so that they do not have any dangerous goods or devices.

arrow