207 Ba61417 Compensation (as referred to in this paragraph)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

[Judgment of the court below]

00 Construction Works

Law Firm 00

Attorney 000

January 15, 2008

February 5, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 42, 153, 794 won, 41, 253, 794 won, and 5% per annum from June 6, 2004 to February 5, 2008, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Each of the plaintiffs' remaining claims is dismissed.

3. 2/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant: 67, 703, 084 won to Plaintiff 1; 66, 203, 084 won to Plaintiff 2; and 2004 won to each of them.

6. 5% per annum from June to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the following day to the full payment date.

The payment of each proportion of money shall be made.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 20 on June 15, 2004, the facts of recognition of the basis of responsibility (1) (A) by the plaintiffs (1): on June 15, 2004, Han QO (9 years old): 20, on the part of the plaintiffs, came from water-related accommodations while playing together with six kinds at the reservoir located near the house; (b) on June 12, 2004, at around 00: (a) on June 12, 2004, Plaintiff 1, his father, her father, came into the front place of the water-related reservoir located on the upper side of the reservoir, and (c) on the part of the water-related reservoir, he turned into the front place of the water-related reservoir at least 3 meters, even if he did not go through the water-related reservoir, and (d) on the part of the water-related reservoir at least 3 meters in the heart.

C. The above reservoir is an agricultural reservoir of approximately 100,000 square meters and is occupied and managed by the defendant as a place designated as an agricultural protection zone in order to protect agricultural environment, such as securing water sources in the agricultural promotion zone and preserving water quality, and even though the depth is deeply dangerous, there are many people who enjoy water play in the summer and domination for others, and water-related leisure business that leased the water surface from the defendant.

(D) The Defendant: (a) installed a warning board, dangerous signs, wire-frames, fences, etc. in the vicinity of the reservoir; and (b) sent a notice to the neighboring diplomatic missions, etc. to seek cooperation in the prevention of safety accidents due to swimming, water play, fishing, sled, sled, ice rink, etc. on the summer and winter season; (c) on the day of the accident, the moving route of 00 meters or more at the site of the accident, only one warning sign was installed in the vicinity of the bank located far away from 500 meters or more at the site of the accident; and (d) there was no access control facility or risk sign, etc. at the vicinity of the site of the accident (after the accident of this case, a warning sign for the prohibition of swimming is installed).

(2) Determination

According to the above facts, the above reservoir is likely to be in danger of accidents by people playing water in the summer, and in particular, the accident site is a deep-depth relation, but the possibility of children in the surrounding village's access to water play cannot be ruled out. Thus, although the defendant who occupies and manages the reservoir has a duty of care to take safety measures to prevent accidents in advance by taking safety measures to control access to the accident site in preparation for the case, he is obliged to install only one warning sign at a place less than 500 meters away from the accident site and to take safety measures such as failing to install safety facilities or dangerous signs at a place near the accident site, he is deemed to have caused the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the defect in the installation and preservation of the structure.

B. Limitation on liability

Meanwhile, as the plaintiffs, who are parents of 00 on the ship, knew that the risk of accidents was high in the event that water play in a reservoir near the house, and therefore, even though they have a duty to protect and supervise the reservoir by issuing a warning not to access the reservoir, they did not know in advance that they are friendly with their ties and they are left the reservoir without properly taking caution measures. Thus, it is reasonable to consider such circumstances in determining the scope of the defendant's compensation, but the negligence should be deemed to exceed 70%, so the defendant's liability for damages is limited to 30%.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap 1 to 5. Eul 1 to 8; witness 00; result of on-site inspection; purport of all pleadings]

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, the calculation of the amount of damages shall be as shown in the attached Table. The calculation of the present price shall be in accordance with the Hofman Ordinance, and the period of less than a month and the amount of less than a won shall be discarded.

(a) Actual income:

Since ○○○ was residing in an rural area at the time of the accident, he/she shall evaluate the amount calculated by multiplying the same village wage of an adult male from July 28, 2016 to the age of 60, the maximum working age for which the Plaintiffs seek to complete military service after becoming an adult, by 25 days of the working days recognized in light of the empirical rule, as monthly income. The average amount of the daily wage of rural communities in 2007 ( male) is 61,389 won, and shall be calculated based on this.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, significant facts, and empirical rule]

(b) Funeral expenses.

Plaintiff 1’s expenditure of three million won (no dispute over)

C. Limitation on liability

Defendant’s Liability Ratio: 30%

(d) Circumstances of consolation money (1) : Various circumstances shown in pleadings, such as the background of the instant accident, degree of negligence by both parties, network ○○ and age of the Plaintiffs, and their family relations (2).

The Plaintiffs: 15 million won each, 5 million won.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Attached Table of Calculation of Damages