beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,930,546 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 26, 2014 to April 7, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. 1) The Defendant operated a D hotel club in Daegu Jung-gu, the Defendant. 2) On April 26, 2014, the Plaintiff found the said club along with the working club rent around 23:00. At that time, the stage of the said club was three minutes at the center and the left and right space, and the interval between the stage was to the extent that the body of the female was able to take place, and the above stage had several visitors, such as DJ, etc.
3) The Plaintiff was provided medical treatment after performing a satisfying operation on the upper right side with an open upper part of the bridge, etc. (the fact that there is no dispute over recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 9, video of evidence Nos. 11 and 13, witness E, and witness E’s testimony, when the right bridge was under dancing with the aid of the customer under the direction of the satisfy.
B. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the failure of the bridge caused by the general tort liability, the responsibility for the installation and preservation of the structure, the responsibility for the user liability, and the gap in the above club stage.
The defendant asserts that the stage of the above club was caused by the plaintiff's refusal to stop the club while under the influence of alcohol, even though it was prevented from going up to the customers, and from going up to the school.
B. According to the evidence as seen earlier, it is acknowledged that there is no stairs going up to the stage of the above club, and that the height of the above club is difficult for customers to board the club up to the chest side of the adult, and as seen earlier, considering the fact that the Plaintiff was able to board the club with the guide of the above stage and the help of the persons below the stage, the Plaintiff cannot be found to have known that the Defendant or employees believed the statement No. 1, and prevented them from going up to the stage of the above club, even though they prevented the Defendant or employees from going up to the above stage.