2015dada 87588 Compensation for damages

this Act

Attorney Lee Do-young

1. Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Corporation;

Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court Decision 29 Garo 29 (Garo 1, Samsung Fire Building)

Law Firm International Law Firm (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant)

2. Amerasia fire and marine insurance company;

Seoul Central-ro 110, Central-ro 110 (Seoul Central-ro 5, Seoul Tact Building)

Attorney Lee Do-young

June 8, 2016

June 29, 2016

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Defendants shall pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won each and each of them at the rate of 5% per annum from January 27, 2015 to the service date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

According to Gap evidence 2 and Gap evidence 23 evidence 1, 2, 3 through 7, Eul evidence 26, 27, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-3, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleadings of the witness Lee 00, and significant facts in this court, the plaintiff was unable to report 4,00 in diameter to 4,00 mix the above 00, while he was able to friendly 5,000 and Squisibly 4, the above 4,00 mix mix 4,00 mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar m.

At the beginning, there are four grades, and the primary reporter is required to wear a high shot, career worker is required to use a low shot (see the last head of the attached Form), and the two players may be single, and the matcher is able to use the front wall of the other party, who is not the front wall, but the other party's wall, or the side wall, which may be faced with the other party's or floor and the side wall, which may not be the front wall, and the match organizers may jointly use the shot, which may protect snow when they use the shot, with a high risk of shot, and in particular, they are required to wear a security light that can protect snow when they leave. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was able to wear the above shot, 5,6 months, and 00,000,00,000 won and more than 10,000,000,000 won of the daily life of the plaintiff and the defendants were not able to wear the above shot.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the above accident is the cause of the claim in this case, and since the above accident was caused by the negligence that occurred from the winding that the plaintiff misleads the plaintiff to the west, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff, and the defendants are each insurer of the above 00, and they are liable to pay KRW 100 million to the plaintiff.

B. Therefore, we examine whether the above accident occurred due to negligence of 00, and since a person participating in an athletic game may differ from other competitors due to his or her conduct, we assume the duty of safety consideration, which is the duty of good faith to ensure the life or physical safety of other athletes, in compliance with the sports rules. Furthermore, sports games such as a scambling or Taekwondo where the price for the counter players is mainly formed through physical contact in the area where many players, such as scambling or Taekwondo, are in danger inherent in the game itself accompanying physical contact. A participant in the athletic game has a risk inherent in the game accompanying physical contact and participates in the athletic game to a certain extent possible, and thus, he or she has fulfilled the above duty of care. Thus, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the type and risk of the game in question, situation at the time, compliance with the sports rules by the relevant parties, nature and degree of violation of the rules, degree of injury and injury, etc., and if the act does not exceed the social reasonable scope (see, 2016.18).

However, as seen earlier, it is almost impossible for one of them to be friendly only to the front wall of the other players, floors, and side walls, as it is almost impossible for one of them to have a relatively high speed in a narrow space, and at the same time, to have a high probability on the side surface of the other players, floors, and side walls (it can be known in a common sense that a player in the front side has contributed to the front wall, leading to the front wall, and is able to have the front player in public in public, depending on the situation where he is going to go to the front wall). Based on these circumstances, evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not constitute a violation of the quota regulations generally accepted at the time of the accident, or even if it was possible to expect an accident even if it was not possible to do so, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff violated the said 00 in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have a wrong behavior beyond the socially reasonable scope and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff did not have a different position in front of the accident, as stated in subparagraph 4.

C. Therefore, without examining the Plaintiff’s other arguments such as the amount of damages, the instant claim based on the premise that the O is liable for damages against the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims of this case are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Gyeong-soo