beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,853,785 as well as 5% per annum from August 8, 2014 to November 14, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around 17:00 on August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff, along with his and her wife and her children, was set up according to the shot-gun D located in Gangseo-gun D (hereinafter “instant resort”) located in Gangwon-gun C (hereinafter “instant resort”), which was operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant resort”). While the Plaintiff was set up according to the shot of the play facilities (hereinafter “the instant resort facilities”), the shot board was laid down under the bottom and the right sloping down.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.
As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from the frameworks of the reproduction on the right side other than the hys, which requires treatment for about 8 weeks, and was performed a dysical and internal surgery on August 9, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758(1) of the Civil Act refers to a state in which a structure fails to meet normal safety requirements according to its use. In determining whether such safety requirements are met, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure has fulfilled his/her duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the risk of the structure. The ordinary safety refers to the safety required not only to the use of the structure itself but also to the situation in which the structure is actually being installed and used.
B. In light of the above legal principles, the instant scambling constitutes a passage through which the Defendant’s customers move to use the instant scambling facility, and thus, the instant scambling must have sufficient stability to prevent customers from going beyond the instant scambling while the instant scambling. However, the Plaintiff was merely a part of the scambling.