The case holding that the public bath business operator is liable to compensate for the damage caused by a customer's abortion accident on the ground that the public bath business operator cannot be deemed to have made every effort to prevent the accident on the ground that he/she cannot be seen to have made every effort to prevent the accident on the ground that he/she installed a signboard around the public bath with a slived floor of the public bath and installed a signboard

The case holding that the public bath business operator shall be held responsible for compensating the customer for damages caused by an accident on the ground that he/she cannot be deemed to have made every effort to prevent the accident on the ground that he/she installed the hot floor of the public bath with a slicking material and installed a separate prevention facility for a slick with a high slickness, or did not take measures to prevent an accident by using the floor surface materials for a type of slick with a high slick, and that he/she installed a signboard indicating "slick caution" around the hot spring

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Roon, Attorney Kim Kim-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Han & Yang, Attorneys Song-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Gau30726 Decided June 18, 2009

October 20, 2009

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 2,835,806 won with 5% interest per annum from August 13, 2008 to November 17, 2009, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants, respectively.

4. The portion paid with the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 7,786,023 won with the amount of 5% per annum from August 13, 2008 to the delivery date of a duplicate of the petition of appeal of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff withdrawn a claim against the lost income from the trial, and reduced the purport of the claim as above).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the entries and images of Gap evidence 5 through 7, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including each number):

A) On August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff suffered from injury due to an accident that is caused by the bath in the ○○ Hot Spring located in Seoul (hereinafter “instant bath”). Defendant 1 is the insurer who entered into an insurance policy with Defendant 1 with respect to the instant bath. Defendant Samsung Fire Maritime Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a person who operates the bath bath in this case, and Defendant Samsung Fire Maritime Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

B) At around 14:00 on August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the dives of the aggregate of the aggregate fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat

C) At the time of the instant accident, the floor of the hot spring was composed of a variety of strings of a large size, and among these sculptures, the water rope was attached to a string string for underwater dynasium.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, it can be easily anticipated that the floor of the bath in this case may cause an accident to be slicked by a person who uses a sugar which is considerably slicked with a beer stone or slick material, and Defendant 1, who operates the bath in this case, has failed to take any measures to prevent the slicking accident, even though he was able to separately install a prevention facility of slickly slicking so as to prevent such an accident, or to prevent the slicking accident by changing the substance of the floor to the types of slicks, and it is reasonable to deem that the accident in this case occurred due to its negligence.

The Defendants asserted that Defendant 1 employed employees to clean the floor of the bath of this case once a day, and installed a signboard indicating the “slicker caution” around the hot bath. Even if slicker slicks installed within the hot bath in which the accident of this case occurred, it cannot be assessed as defective for the bath of this case, Defendant 1’s negligence, or Defendant 1’s negligence in installing the facilities ordinarily used in the public bath of this case, or took the best possible measures for Defendant 1, such as making the rail around the hot bath in the form of a pipe, and sending the Plaintiff back to the hospital immediately after the occurrence of the accident of this case, they did not have any negligence with Defendant 1 in the accident of this case. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the negligence of Defendant 1, which caused the accident of this case, did not take any responsibility for preventing the slicking of the floor of the hot bath of this case, as seen earlier, did not violate the relevant administrative standards of the above bath of this case.

Therefore, Defendant 1 and Defendant Company liable for an accident in the bath of this case are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

B. Limitation on liability

However, in full view of the evidence and the empirical rule as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff could be aware of the extinguishment of the floor of a hot spring, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay due attention to the occurrence of the instant accident, such as moving the floor of a hot spring site not to be able to be able to be able to be able to take a prudently, accordingly, is recognized. In light of such circumstances, the Defendants’ liability is limited to 30%.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Wang medical expenses: 835,806 won, total of 2,786,020 won, constituting the ratio of the Defendants’ liability (=2,786,020 won x 30%);

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 8-1 to 7, Evidence No. 9-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) Consolation money: 2,000,000 won; and

[Reference Grounds] Plaintiff’s age, details and result of the instant accident, and all other circumstances revealed in the instant argument

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay to each plaintiff 2,835,806 won (2,806 won for early treatment + solatium 2,000,000) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 13, 2008, which is the date of the accident of this case, until November 17, 2009, the date of the judgment of the court below, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is unfair to dismiss the remainder of the claim. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the above amount of payment is revoked, and the payment of the above amount is ordered to be ordered to the defendants, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sung-won (Presiding Judge)