Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Ba, Attorneys Park Jae-de et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 27, 2017

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff 3 51,157,29 won, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2 each 500,000 won and each of them shall be 5% per annum from August 24, 2013 to August 22, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants pay 84,110,076 won to each of the Plaintiffs 3, respectively, and 5,000,000 won to each of the Plaintiffs 1, and 2, respectively, and 5% per annum from August 24, 2013 to the date of service of the application for amendment of the purport of the instant claim, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Occurrence of an accident

A) Date of an accident: August 24, 2013

B) Accident site: The “○○○○○○○○” Children’s playground (hereinafter “instant play room”) operated by Defendant 1 on the 2nd floor of Ysan-si (hereinafter omitted)

C) Circumstances and results: Plaintiff 3 (date of birth omitted) committed an accident on the part of the instant playground at a fee of KRW 5,000 per hour by connecting a wooden pole with a wooden pipe, which connects a wooden pole and frame, in sequential order, with a metal pipe which connects a wooden pole to a street, thereby getting up on the upper part of the instant playground or getting up a slick, or breaking up on the pole, while in conflict with other arches, the Plaintiff 3 (date of birth omitted) incurred an accident on the left part of the upper part of the instant playground, which is lower than 1m below the left part (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) Status of the parties

Plaintiff 1 is the father of Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 2 is the mother of Plaintiff 3, and Defendant Community Credit Cooperatives Federation (hereinafter “Defendant Community Credit Cooperatives”) is the insurer who entered into a mutual aid agreement on the liability of compensation for children’s play facilities with Defendant 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

Defendant 1, an operator of the instant play room, who is a fee-charging, has paid attention to prevent Plaintiff 3, who is merely four years of age at the time of the instant accident, from using the play room, and even if he was obligated to take sufficient measures to prevent the accident and injury by installing a sufficient safety device so as not to fall even if falling off, it shall be deemed that the instant accident occurred due to negligence. Defendant 1 and the Defendant’s depository, which is the insurer, are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

C. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion on limitation of liability

1) The Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ responsibility should be limited since Plaintiff 2, who was assigned Plaintiff 3 to the instant play room, was aware of whether Plaintiff 3 had no part of causing danger to Plaintiff 3, and requested the safety management personnel individually, or neglected to protect and supervise Plaintiff 3 directly.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged based on the overall purport of statement and oral argument No. 9, i.e., Plaintiff 2 entrusted Plaintiff 3 with the instant play room operated for shopping purposes. Plaintiff 3’s use of the play equipment was reduced according to the prescribed purpose; ② Plaintiff 3, an infant who is only four years of age at the time of the accident, could have easily predicted that Plaintiff 3’s play equipment, which was used by Plaintiff 3, may fall into the upper part, and ③ immediately after the accident, Plaintiff 1 demanded Defendant 1 to confirm the CCTV image of the instant play room which was taken on the site at the time of the accident and to store the above image, but Defendant 1 did not retain objective materials to confirm and supervise the situation of the play room at the time of the accident, and Defendant 3 did not appear to have contributed to the protection of the Plaintiff’s children’s play facilities at the time of the accident, such as the extension of the Plaintiff’s duty of care and supervision.

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, the calculation of the attached amount of damages is the same as the entry in the attached Form of the calculation sheet of damages (in accordance with the headmanial calculation method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month as simple interest, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but it shall be included on the side on which the amount is less than monthly and less than the last month shall be included, and it shall be excluded, as the plaintiff

(a) Actual income:

1) Facts of recognition

A) Personal information: As stated in the “basic matters” column of the attached amount of damages calculation sheet.

(b) Income and operating period: The average urban daily wage, the 22th day of each month, and the 60 years of age;

2) 후유장해 및 노동능력상실률 : 이 법원의 △△△△△병원장에 대한 2016. 4. 12.자 (정형외과)신체감정촉탁결과(이하 ‘2016. 4. 12.자 △△△△△병원 정형외과 감정결과’라 한다)에 의하면, 이 사건 사고로 인하여 원고 3에게 좌측 주관절 운동 제한[신전 5도 제한, 굴곡 20도 제한(AMA6판을 기준으로 정상 굴곡은 140도이고, 원고 3의 우측 팔도 140도인데 원고 3의 좌측 팔은 120도임)]의 후유장해가 남은 사실이 인정되고, 위 후유장해는 유사한 항목으로 맥브라이드표 주관절(팔꿉관절) Ⅱ. 부전강직(부분적 강직) 중 제한된 운동 범위 D(180도위에서 75도굴곡) 항목(이하 ‘주관절-Ⅱ-D'항목이라 한다)을 준용하여 노동능력상실률을 10%로 평가할 수 있다.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, the empirical rule, the appearance of △△△ Hospital on April 12, 2016 and the result of appraisal, the purport of the whole pleadings.

3) The assertion and determination of the parties with respect to the pro rata disability and rate of loss of labor capacity

A) As to this, the Plaintiffs asserted that the labor disability ratio of Plaintiff 3 was 13%, and the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff 3 would not be recognized as the labor disability ratio for Plaintiff 3, on the following grounds: (a) Plaintiff 3 could undergo an operation, such as the removal of the frame and the anti-salking; and (b) Plaintiff 3 would be able to recover from the air-saving movement until the age of 9-10 by performing an additional operation, the subsequent disability would be limited to two years only once once; and (c) Mabrop table items applied mutatis mutandis in the above appraisal result would be applicable to cases where the sports range of this case is limited to not more than 105 degrees; and (d) it should be determined differently depending on whether the arms suffered from the disorder are mainly used.

B) On the other hand, in a case where a court requires special knowledge and experience in determining certain matters, it is nothing more than using it as an auxiliary means for the court’s determination. Thus, in a case where there exist several appraisal results contrary to the same facts, if the court has acknowledged facts by employing one of them, it is not necessary to clearly state the reasons for employing one of them as lawful and unless it violates the rules of experience or logic (Supreme Court Decision 88Meu14076 delivered on June 27, 198).

C) On April 12, 2016, △△△△△△ Hospital’s appraisal results are deemed to have been 10% of permanent disability due to Plaintiff 3’s physical restriction on 5 degrees old and 20 degrees old, applying mutatis mutandis Mablo’s supervision-Ⅱ-D to the head of the △△△△△△△ Hospital. According to the result of the court’s request for physical supplementation of the additional response, the above appraisal is deemed to have partly improved the symptoms of 100 in the △△△△△△△△ Hospital’s 10th anniversary of the 6th anniversary of the 6th appraisal methods, and it may be deemed that 10% of the 1st day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 10th day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 1st day after the 20th day after the 20th day after the 3th day after the 20th day. day after the 3 appraisal.

D) In light of the above appraisal results and the fact-finding inquiry results, following the adoption of Plaintiff 3’s additional surgery or whether it would be deemed to be a permanent disability in the future, or whether it would be deemed to be a market hazard, and the labor disability shall be evaluated somewhat differently. However, even if Plaintiff 3 undergo an additional operation, there is a risk of confusion, and even if it is possible for Plaintiff 3 to contain the head of the movement within the range of movement after the operation, and it is clear that Plaintiff 3’s left-hand-hand range of movement after the accident is limited, it is reasonable to view that Plaintiff 3 might have left a permanent disability by applying the current range of movement to Plaintiff 3. Moreover, even if Plaintiff 3’s left-hand manager movement rate is reasonable to determine that the above disability was permanent, it cannot be seen that the Defendants’ labor disability is against the empirical rule-based rule-based rule-based rule-based or △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△’s labor disability.

4) Calculation: The amount of damages shall be KRW 40,925,924, such as written in the separate sheet of calculation of damages (actual income).

(b) Future treatment costs;

The court's physical examination of the head of △△△△△△ Hospital on April 12, 2016, claimed that the sum of 4,272,960 won for anti-scopic correction surgery and 4,272,960 won for the head of △△△△△△△△ Hospital on April 12, 2016 and the sum of 6,456,960 won for anti-scopic treatment outside the above sex and subsequent treatment costs as a result of the request for physical examination of the head of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Hospital on June 14, 2017 should be included in the future medical treatment costs. However, in consideration of the fact that the sum of 5,263,50 won for anti-scopic removal surgery and the sum of 160 won for each of the above △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Hospital, the foregoing parts should be considered 160 parts of the above.

(c) Wrasking expenses;

No recognition does not recognize (the result of the examination conducted by △△△△ Hospital on April 12, 2016). The Plaintiff claimed king expenses based on the result of the physical examination entrusted to the president of △△△ University Hospital in this court. However, in full view of the circumstances, such as the progress and age of treatment for Plaintiff 3, it is difficult to determine that the above Plaintiff needs nursing to recognize property damage exceeding the level required for deliberation.

(d) Expenses for medical treatment: 1,479,800 won (each entry in evidence 4 and 5 (including paper numbers));

(e) Mutual aid: 66,460 won which was paid by the Defendant’s credit cooperatives;

(f) Property damages of Plaintiff 3: Total 47,157,299 won;

(g) Consolation money;

1) Reasons for taking into account: All circumstances such as the age, injury, and disability of Plaintiff 3; and the parts and degree of the injury

2) Amount of recognition: Plaintiffs 34,000,000 won, Plaintiffs 1, and 2 respectively, and KRW 500,000

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the Plaintiffs 3 51,157,29 won (property damages of KRW 47,157,299 + solatium 4,000,000), Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2 each of them, as well as 50,000 won from August 24, 2013, which is the date of the instant accident, to dispute about the existence and scope of the Defendants’ performance obligation, until August 22, 2017, and to pay damages for delay calculated at a rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date of full payment. The Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants are partly accepted within the scope of recognition as above.

[Attachment]

Judges Kang Shin-young