204Na6044 Liability for Damages

New York

○○

Busan District Court Decision 2003Gaso71557 Delivered on May 4, 2004

December 16, 2005

January 27, 2006

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the arguments in the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4-1 through 6.

A. At around 21:30 on November 13, 2003, the Plaintiff admitted the Plaintiff as a guest to the O located in Busan ○○○-gu, Busan, a soup, a soup, operated by the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff, at around 06:00 the following day, found out that the key of the personal property box was destroyed by shouldering or sprinking out in the lock soup, without notifying the content of the wall, kept the wall in custody without putting the earer in the earer box, putting the earer in the earer box, and putting the earer box in the private property box, putting the key in the private property box back to the key, and then found that the key of the personal property box was destroyed by the locker, and confirmed at the soup holder box of this case. As can be seen, she had already discovered the wall box that the earer submitted the earer’s ear and stored by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the theft accident of this case”).

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, the business owner of the soup bank of this case, was liable for damages caused by the contract or tort, since the defendant, who is the business owner of the soup bank of this case, separately administered the valuables and made the customers sign at the time of leaving them, and the signature at the time of leaving the plaintiff at the time of the theft accident of this case, although the signature at the time of leaving the plaintiff at the time of the theft of this case differs from each other, the defendant's employees did not neglect the procedure for identification and caused the plaintiff to keep the wall as valuables, which the plaintiff stored as valuables, as a result of the plaintiff's employees, 20,000 won in cash, 4,50,000 won cashier's checks, 8,500 won cashier's checks, 100,000 won cashier's checks, which were contained in the above wall

B. Determination

A customer who uses a bath held by many and unspecified persons may be held liable for the theft, loss, etc. of the bath manager only when he entrusts him to the bath manager with a description of the kind and value of his currency, securities and other valuables (Article 153 of the Commercial Act). In this case, as long as the Plaintiff does not charged to the Defendant with the currency or securities in which he belongs, by specifying the kind and value of the currency or securities, the Plaintiff cannot be held liable for damages under a contract. In addition, even if the Defendant’s employee breached his duty of care, such as neglecting his identification procedures, and the employer’s liability is recognized, even if the Defendant’s employee is recognized as the employer’s liability, it is insufficient to recognize the contents contained in the Plaintiff’s above wall as a sum of KRW 1,00,000,000 and KRW 32,000,000,000,000,000,000 won. The Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Park Jae-soo

Judges, fixed-up boats

Judges Kim Jong-chul