209 Ghana 22289 Damage (as stated)

1. Kim○-○

2. MaximumD;

3 . 최◁◁

The address of the plaintiffs Sung-nam City, Sung-gu

Plaintiff 2, 3 is a minor, and the father of the person with parental authority is the minor.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Lee In-bok

○ Kim

Mag-si, Nam-gu

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

September 10, 2010

October 1, 2010

1 . 피고는 원고 김○○에게 25 , 073 , 306원 , 원고 최 , 최◁◁에게 각 1 , 000 , 000원 및 위 각 돈에 대하여 2009 . 2 . 14 . 부터 2010 . 10 . 1 . 까지는 연 5 % , 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 각 지급하라 .

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

피고는 원고 김○○에게 67 , 873 , 625원 , 원고 최▷▷ , 원고 최 에게 각 4 , 000 , 000원 및 위 각 돈에 대하여 2009 . 2 . 14 . 부터 이 사건 청구취지 및 원인변경신청서 송달일까 지는 연 5 % , 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 20 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 각 지 급하라 .

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition

1 ) 피고는 2009 . 2 . 14 . 18 : 41경 4시간 가량의 스키강습만을 받은 상태에서 경기 이천군 마장면 해월리 ●●●●●에 있는 리조트 스키장 중급코스 2번 슬로프에서 활강을 하던 중 전방에서 스노우보드를 타고 있던 원고 김○○를 발견하였으나 방향을 전환하거나 제동을 제때에 하지 못하고 정면으로 들이받아 원고 김○○를 그곳 바닥에 넘어뜨려 원고 김○○로 하여금 흉부 압박골절 및 경추간판탈출 등의 상해를 입게 하 였다 ( 이하 ' 이 사건 사고 ' 라고 한다 ) .

2) At the time, however, the snow that ices ice due to low temperature was very sleeped, and there were many people to skies at all times.

3) Plaintiff Kim ○ is a person who has a career as a skiing instructor, and Plaintiff Choi D and Plaintiff Kim ○ are children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-7, 10, 11, and 13 evidence, fact-finding with respect to Liet Co., Ltd., the result of fact-finding with respect to Liet Co., Ltd., the witness's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1 ) 위 인정사실에 의하면 , 피고는 스키를 타는 경우 수준에 맞는 슬로프를 이용하 고 활강시 전방좌우를 제대로 잘 살피며 적절한 방향전환 및 제동을 통하여 다른 사람 들과의 충돌을 방지할 주의의무가 있음에도 이를 게을리 한 과실로 이 사건 사고를 일 으켰으므로 , 이 사건 사고의 피해자인 원고 김○○와 원고의 직계비속인 원고 최D , 최◁◁에게 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다 .

2) The defendant asserts that the scope of the defendant's responsibility should be limited to 50% since he was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to consider safety, such as obstructing the defendant's walk while crossing the plaintiff Kim ○○, while driving across the road. However, even according to the witness's testimony, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant who gets a skiing from the later side of the plaintiff Kim ○○, when getting a skiing from the later side of the plaintiff Kim ○, went through a large range of crossing to the next side, and it is difficult to view that there is a possibility to escape the defendant who was approaching the plaintiff Kim ○○, and therefore, it is difficult to view that there was a possibility to escape the defendant who was approaching the latter side from the latter side, the defendant's above claim on the limitation of liability is accepted.

2. Scope of damages.

In addition to the following separate statements, the period for the convenience of the accounting of the amount of damages shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but less than the won and less than the last month shall be discarded, and the present price calculation at the time of the accident shall be based on the rate of 5/12 per month, which shall be deducted from the intermediate interest at the rate of 5/12 per month). Moreover, it shall be rejected that the parties’ arguments have not separately explained.

(a) Actual income;

1) Facts of recognition and details of evaluation

A) Personal information: as stated in the column for the calculation of damages in attached Form.

(b) Occupation and disinfection: Urban daily labor, and wages of ordinary workers in a report on the fact-finding survey of construction business;

(C)the ratio of residual disability and labor capacity loss;

(1) The pressure pressure tabled by chest sus:

Mabrod Obstruction I - A - 1 - 32% of the market per year c1

(2) The escape from a conical signboard:

Mabrod Disturbing Damage V - Han market 18% in B 4 years

(C) 40 per cent of the contribution of 50 per cent

○○○○ asserted that the Plaintiff Kim○-○ claimed V-D-2 - b permanent disability 14.4% of the 14.4% (the degree of contribution to 40%). However, in the case of Plaintiff Kim○○, there was a high-neneal and a number of pressures in the case of the Plaintiff Kim○-○, while the symptoms are very serious due to the resistance of the new boundary, there is a need to observe the surgery in a state where it is necessary to observe the progress without an operation, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the symptoms might be displayed without a neological loss beyond the above recognition scope to have been caused by the same degree as the head of Plaintiff Kim○-○.

2) Calculation: The rate of loss of labor ability during the 14-day period from the date of the instant accident shall be calculated by 100%, and the same shall apply to the entry in the column of actual income in the annexed sheet of damages calculation.

(b) Nursing expenses;

Adult women's nursing is recognized for 14 days of hospitalization at the opening of the king.

(c) Medical expenses.

Recognizing 2, 124, and 950 won as the king's medical expenses, the argument of 3 million won for the future medical expenses of the plaintiff Kim Jong-○, who is premised on the operation of the Gyeongbu for the reasons mentioned above, shall be dismissed.

(d) Costs of purchasing assistive devices;

350,000 won is recognized for the purchase cost of the Guang assistant, and 200,000 won is denied for the following reasons: the plaintiff KimO's purchase cost of the Wang assistant 20,000 won is premised on the operation of the Wang assistant .

(e) Mutual aid;

2,400,000 won

F. consolation money,

1) Reasons for consideration: The plaintiffs' age, the background and degree of the accident in this case, the degree and degree of the injury and the disability in the aftermath, and other circumstances shown in the arguments in this case.

2) Amount of decision

Plaintiff ○○○: 7,00,000 won

원고 최D , 최◁◁ : 각 1 , 000 , 000원

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 8, 9, and 19, the result of the physical examination commissioned to the chief of the Seoul Hospital branch of this court, the result of the fact inquiry about the chief of the Incheon University Hospital, the purport of the body before oral pleadings.

3. Conclusion

그렇다면 , 피고는 원고 김○○에게 25 , 073 , 306원 ( = 재산상 손해 18 , 073 , 306원 + 위 자료 , 7 , 000 , 000원 ) , 원고 최▷▷ , 최 에게 각 1 , 000 , 000원 및 위 각 돈에 대하여 이 사건 사고일인 2009 . 2 . 14 . 부터 피고가 이행의무의 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 상당한 이 -판결 선고일인 2010 . 10 . 1 . 까지는 민법이 정한 연 5 % , 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법이 정한 연 20 % 의 각 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급 할 의무가 있으므로 , 원고들의 청구는 위 인정범위 내에서 이유 있어 인용하고 , 나머지 청구는 이유 없어 기각한다 .

Judges Kim Jong-young