2015 Ghana 244961 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

○○○ Incorporated Company

Seoul Central District

○○○

Law Firm Dowon (Law Firm Dowon)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Park ○

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-gu 216

[Judgment of the court below]

August 18, 2016

September 8, 2016

1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s liability for damages with respect to the accidents described in the separate sheet against the Defendant does not exist in excess of the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 2,979,590 per annum from June 7, 2013 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-third of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

37,014 won for the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages for an accident entered in the attached list against the Defendant.

check that it does not have any excess.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, a company operating the ○○○ department store, who is engaged in the events in the 9th floor of the above department store at the event center, was placed on the luxal lux of ordinary adults sizeing in the above event center.

B. However, the Defendant, on June 7, 2013: 30, 200: 30, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000. 30 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 ; 200 :0 ; 200 ; 201.

B. The Defendant received medical treatment from each hospital at the Seoul leap Hospital on the 8th day of the same month, and received hospital treatment from the Seoul leap Hospital from the 9th day of the same month to the 22th day of the same month.

C. On September 5, 2013, the Defendant was paid KRW 2,300,00 as part of the damages compensation by a lot damage insurance company that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with the Plaintiff on the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 21 through 24, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s negligence. Considering the Defendant’s negligence of 30%, the Defendant’s medical expenses of KRW 959, 728, and KRW 577,286, consolation money of KRW 800,00 are recognized. Since the Defendant partly received KRW 2,30,000 from a lot damage insurance company as compensation for damages, KRW 37,014, which remains the Defendant’s damages. As such, the Plaintiff’s damages liability against the Defendant in relation to the instant accident does not exist in excess of KRW 37,014.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The defendant's negligence in relation to the accident of this case is not the defendant's negligence. The defendant suffered damages of 3,968,60 won for medical expenses, 472, 00 won for transportation expenses, 2, 735, 65 won for lost income, and 1,885, 870 won for future treatment expenses, 2, 500 won for consolation money, 2, 500,000 for material materials, mental damage, and 14, 032,00 won for living together, and 14,032,05 won for mental damage. Thus, the plaintiff's debt to the defendant is the remaining 11,732,055 won after deducting the insurance amount already paid, 2,300,00 won for the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Occurrence of damages liability

According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s violation of its duty of care to prevent balking from exceeding balking while installing balking in the department stores operated by the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for the Defendant’s damages due to the accident in this case.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant was negligent in the accident of this case when considering the fair and reasonable distribution of damages, etc. that the defendant is responsible for booming with many shopping customers as adults, but considering the fact that the inside of the department store at the time of the accident of this case seems to have been relatively small, and that the defendant could not avoid the accident of this case because the boom exceeded the defendant's rear side, it is not deemed that there was negligence on the defendant with regard to the occurrence of the accident of this case or the expansion of damages. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. Scope of liability for damages

(1) All of the claims of the parties shall be dismissed. (1) Costs of medical treatment and issuance of a medical certificate of diagnosis of KRW 2,385,940 and costs of issuance of a medical certificate of diagnosis of KRW 57,500 [from June 7, 2013 to July 11, 2013 (each of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 4 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings)]

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the amount of diagnosis costs of KRW 57,500 and the difference between the difference between the sick room and KRW 897,000 shall be excluded. However, it is recognized that the medical certificate costs have causations with the accident of this case, and according to the statement in the Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant can prove that the defendant has inevitably used two rooms, so it does not exclude the difference in the difference in the difference in the sick room.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay medical expenses from September 2, 2013 to March 2016, and the future medical treatment expenses and transportation expenses for the above period. However, the Seoul leap Hospital issued a medical certificate that requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment to the Defendant, the Defendant discharged the Defendant from the Seoul leap Hospital on June 22, 2013, and received the medical treatment from the ordinary member by July 11, 2013, and the hospital was not provided until around 50 days after the above period. Considering the fact that the medical treatment after September 2, 2013 does not have a causal relationship with the instant accident, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(2) The actual income

81, 443 won ¡¿ 22/30 x 14 days = 836,150 won (3)-2, 300, 000 won (4)

In light of the background and result of the instant accident, the amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 2,00,000,000, taking into account the various circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age. The Defendant also sought material and mental compensation from his family living together, but it is difficult to recognize that there is no evidence to acknowledge it, or that there is the Defendant’s source of claim. Therefore, the Defendant’s above argument

Therefore, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant does not exceed 2,979,590 won [2,385,940 won + 57,500 won + 836,150 won + 2,300,000 won + 2,000,000 won + 2,000,000 won] as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from June 7, 2013 to the day of full payment, which is the date of the instant accident, and there is no interest in confirmation insofar as the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s liability for damages in relation to the instant accident.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Shin Jae-il