beta
Text
1. Defendant A, among the judgment of the court of first instance, equivalent to the amount ordered to be paid additionally below.
Reasons
Plaintiff
At around 23:00 on October 8, 2014, Plaintiff A et al. recognized the determination of the claim against Defendant Nitcoin Korea, etc., and Plaintiff A et al. was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the claim by Defendant Nitcoin Korea, while he was accommodated in the Hecco hotel operated by Defendant Nitcoin Korea in Busan Shipping Daegu and used the Heccoin in the guest room, he et al., by explosioning the above Hecco, and causing 2 degrees of emulious images on the left hand.
Plaintiff
B The husband of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C are children of Plaintiff A.
Plaintiff
A spent KRW 209,410 as medical expenses for the video of this case.
【In the absence of dispute, a lodging agreement entered into with an accommodation business operator, which is a public entertainment business operator, for the purpose of compensating for damages arising from each description or image of Gap 1, 2, and 3 (including those with a serial number), and all pleadings, is a lease agreement for temporary use of guest rooms and related facilities provided by a lodging business operator to a customer for accommodation, allowing the accommodation business operator to use the guest rooms and make it available to the customer, and is under the exclusive control of the lodging business operator. As such, the accommodation business operator bears the duty to protect the customer’s safety by providing safe and comfortable guest rooms and related facilities without any risk to the customer as usual lease. Such obligation is an incidental obligation recognized by the good faith principle in light of the special nature of a lodging agreement, and is liable for nonperformance due to nonperformance in cases where the accommodation business operator violated his or her life and body and causes damage to the customer.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da43590, Jan. 28, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 96Da47302, Oct. 10, 1997) Examining the above facts of recognition in light of such legal principles, Defendant Saturdays Korea was administered by Plaintiff A, etc.