beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 11,867,132 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 15, 2012 to June 30, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant B is a person who operates E in Suwon-si E (hereinafter “Defendant Hospital”) in Suwon-si, and Defendant C is an employee working at Defendant Hospital’s kitchen.
B. On August 6, 2012, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the Defendant Hospital and received the left-hand slot rehabilitation treatment, etc., and on August 15, 2012, around 08:00 on August 15, 2012, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the pressure pressure of the second summary, by collision with the restaurant operated by Defendant C in the Defendant Hospital’s corridor.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). 【No dispute over the ground for recognition” is asserted, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition of the liability, Defendant C is liable for damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to Defendant C’s tort in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Act, as Defendant C is jointly liable as Defendant C’s employer, and Defendant C is jointly liable for compensation for damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to Defendant C’s tort pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act, inasmuch as he neglected to perform his duty of care to safely operate the restaurant in the direction of the restaurant while running the restaurant in the corridor of the Defendant hospital in which the patients are hospitalized.
B. Limit of liability, however, where damage occurs or has been expanded by competition between harmful act and the victim's side, even though the factors of the victim's side are irrelevant to the victim's causes, such as the risk of physical personality or disease, in case where compensating the perpetrator for the whole amount of damage in light of the form and degree of the disease in question is contrary to the principle of fairness, the court may apply the principle of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation, and take into account the factors of the victim's side who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage in accordance with the principle of comparative negligence in determining the amount of compensation. Accordingly, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16713 Decided June 24, 2005.