beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole in the entries or videos of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 5.
A (B) around 12:50 on August 2, 2011, at around 12:50, the hotel Cubae Lease Co., Ltd., which was combined with Defendant Taesung Pungsung Co., Ltd., caused injury, such as a closed alley and an inner heat, due to the failure to remove water in the swimming pool located in the area of the luminous area of the Busan, which was operated by the corporation.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,316,650 to the medical institution that treated the Plaintiff of KRW 3,775,873 (i.e., the amount of KRW 1,316,650 to the Plaintiff (i.e., the amount of KRW 547,50 to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 292,223 to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 1,619,50 to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 1,650 to the Plaintiff.
C. Defendant Matts Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. is an insurer who has concluded a business liability insurance with Defendant Matts Co., Ltd.
2. According to the above facts and the scope of liability for damages, since Defendant Daesung Co., Ltd. was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to prevent accidents by removing the source of plastic sets of the above swimming pool, it is liable to compensate for damages incurred by A due to the accident in this case as a tortfeasor, and Defendant Qz Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is liable to compensate for the above damages jointly with Defendant Daesung Co., Ltd. as a liability insurer.
However, there is negligence of not walking with plastic sets in a swimming pool which is sufficiently anticipated to have water sources A, and such negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage.
Therefore, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendants, but the ratio shall be 50%.