beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. At around 17:30 on July 17, 2018, the Plaintiff was faced with the string line for travel owned by the Defendant, which falls behind, while getting off and getting out of the pedagogs in the subway digital base area.
B. In the foregoing accident, the Plaintiff spent KRW 289,670 as medical expenses incurred in wounding injuries, such as the dives of arms and legs.
【Reasons for Recognition】 Contents of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 14 (including paper numbers), images, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, the Plaintiff was injured by the negligence of the Defendant, who neglected the management of the ridge for travel, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages.
B. Medical expenses within the scope of damages: transportation expenses of KRW 100,000 claimed by the Plaintiff out of KRW 289,670: The Plaintiff claimed compensation of KRW 358,600 for taxi use costs, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
In case of lost income: The plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 330,00 from lost income for three days, but it is difficult to recognize loss from lost income as evidence submitted by the plaintiff.
The consolation money: 700,000 won shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the developments leading up to the occurrence of the accident, the degree of negligence by the defendant, and the degree
C. The defendant's assertion argues that CCTV images (A No. 8) submitted by the Seoul Transport Corporation were altered and that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case for the purpose of money fraud in collaboration with the subway service personnel, Seoul Transport Corporation, and large number of escalator passengers.
However, there is no doubt that the above CCTV was operated even after examining the circumstances in which the Defendant asserted that the CCTV was forged and the evidence submitted by the Defendant.
In addition, it is recognized that the defendant was a situation in which the two-way distance for travel has been set up and the two-way distance for travel was cut down, while the two-way distance for travel was turned down.
Therefore, the defendant.