In a case where Party A and Party B were the other team and Party B followed Party B, who was close to the Netherlands in his direction, and Party B was able to see Party B’s snow near the opposite part of Party B in the process, and Party B was injured by Party B’s escape, etc., the case holding that Party B is liable to compensate Party A for mental damage suffered by the said accident on the ground that Party B was deemed to have violated Party B’s duty of care for safety.

During the process of Eddminton-type games by which A and B had become a counterpart team, B, which had been close to Nddminton-type games, had been placed in the opposite part of Edmincocks in his direction. During this process, B’s snow near the opposite part of Editcocks, and A suffered an injury, such as a modified body escape.

Although Madminton games are sports games with four sports stadiums, they cannot be deemed as sports for which frequent physical contact or collision between athletes is anticipated, for example, sports games, such as fluoring, recreation, inducement, etc., or sports games with a large-scale structure, but Madminton games with a rapid progress in a narrow space, are sports for which the other team members such as the team members or those of the same team members, or those of the same team members were able to inflict harm on the other team members such as the above team members or those of the above team members by mistake, and thus, in light of the general duty of care for the life, body, and property of others (Article 750 of the Civil Act), the sports team members participating in the above Madminton did not have a duty of care for the safety of safety of the sports team members to the extent that the sports team members were not able to bear such duty of care for the safety of the safety of the safety of the safety of the safety of the safety of the safety of the safety of the safety of the sports team.

Articles 2, 393, 396, 750, 751, and 763 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant (Law Firm Annb, Attorneys Ha Sang-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Gaso21878 Decided August 24, 2018

March 19, 2019

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 2,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendant is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 80% is borne by the Plaintiff, and 20% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay 10,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 27, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant constituted a counter team at the ○○ Sports Center located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address omitted) and had three times the three times the calendar match.

B. Of the foregoing games, the Defendant, where the other players of the Plaintiff Team’s team her friendly cock was close to Nitrate and Nitrate, her shock was in front of the Plaintiff’s side eye. During this process, the Defendant stronged the Plaintiff’s side eye near her friendly cock, thereby suffering from an injury of the Plaintiff’s slope, glass body blood, or red e-made nautical miles (hereinafter “instant accident”). On October 31, 2017, her friendly cock was subject to the removal of an artificial insemination in front, the removal of an artificial insemination in front, the coloning of glass, the guidance radar, and the artificial artificial racker.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 (including several numbers)

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred when the original defendant was close to the direction of the NAt, and the defendant had a strong scock to the plaintiff's face, so the defendant is liable for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not have any injury due to the accident of this case, and that the defendant's act related to the accident of this case did not violate the duty of care of the participant in sports, and therefore, the defendant did not bear liability for consolation money due to the accident of this case.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s injury was recognized as a result of the instant accident, and the Edton game is a game in the stadium where he was injured, and even though he was a happy game, it cannot be viewed as a game where frequent physical contact or collision between athletes is anticipated, inasmuch as he was engaged in scambling, such as scaming and leading, or scamball, which is an athletic event such as a scamball, handball, and scamball. However, scam game is a game in which the Plaintiff’s physical price of the team members, such as the team members, or the team members, or the other team members, such as scambling team members, or the other team members, can be harmed by taking account of the general duty of care (Article 750 of the Civil Act) for life, body, or property of others, and the extent of his duty of care and safety should be ensured by taking into account the extent of his physical safety and safety of the match (scam).

As seen earlier, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant was close to the Nart and the Plaintiff was also close to the opposite part, and the Defendant’s friendship was acknowledged in the direction of the Plaintiff, which was the opposite part of the Plaintiff. In light of the location of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s cot, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant bears the duty of care to take into account the Plaintiff’s safety by taking into account the Plaintiff’s movement sufficiently, and by taking into account the Plaintiff’s movement, the Defendant is obliged to take into account the Plaintiff’s safety, and the instant accident is deemed the Defendant’s breach of such duty of care, and it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident exceeded the permissible limit under social norms in light of the content and degree of the breach of such duty of care. Accordingly, the Defendant is responsible for pecuniary injury inflicted on the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

B. Scope of liability for damages

According to the evidence mentioned above, it is recognized that the plaintiff did not take such measures, and the plaintiff neglected to take measures to ensure physical safety, such as ensuring the physical safety of the accident of this case, in which the plaintiff's error appears to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the accident of this case, the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant shall be considered in determining the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant, taking into account the plaintiff's age, the background of the accident of this case, the injury of this case, and the degree and degree of the injury caused by the accident of this case, and taking into account the following factors: the amount of consolation money to be paid by the defendant shall be determined as KRW 2,00,000,000, the amount of mental damage to be paid by the defendant.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 2,00,000 to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the judgment of the court of first instance is partially accepted the plaintiff's appeal and the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and it is ordered to pay consolation money to the defendant. The remaining appeal of the plaintiff is dismissed

Judges Park Jong-woo (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sik