(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.21 2020가단208236

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.07.21 2020가단208236

손해배상(기)

Text

1. On May 27, 2019, in relation to an accident involving the Defendant’s image at the “D” Gaca in Pakistan-si, Pakistan-si, 2019.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a “D” limited facilities in Pakistan (hereinafter “instant limited facilities”) at the time of Pakistan.

The defendant, around 16:00 on May 27, 2019, exceeded the brush while using the brush in this case, and sustained images on the floor of the brush.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 【No dispute exists, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s gross negligence that the Defendant neglected his/her duty of care as a user, and it does not result in the Plaintiff’s defect in facilities or the Plaintiff’s breach of duty

However, since the accident of this case occurred in the Hanbia operated by the plaintiff, the plaintiff intends to pay 1 million won to the defendant as consolation money.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation, if the Plaintiff, who is the obligor, specified the first claim in order to deny the fact of occurrence of the obligation, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the burden of assertion and certification as to the requirement of the legal relationship.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). As to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion, the Defendant did not prove that the Plaintiff did not prove any defect in the Hanbag Facilities or the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of care.

(1) The Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant in relation to the instant accident does not exist in excess of one million won that the Plaintiff would pay as consolation money to the Defendant, even though the Defendant demanded the Defendant to specifically assert and prove the facts of the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of care on the one-time date for pleading. However, the Defendant submitted a medical certificate, a written decision on disability grade, etc., and did not prove the facts of the Plaintiff’s breach

3. Conclusion, the claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 3. 13. 선고 97다45259 판결

유사 판례

-전주지방법원군산지원 2016.10.11 2015가단56586

-인천지방법원 2015.10.23 2014가단226719

-의정부지방법원 2019.02.12 2017노3377

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.08.24 2016가단17639

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.26 2014가단44529