logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.09.17 2019나53423
손해배상(기)
Text

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2, 2018, around 16:37, the Plaintiff was passing ahead of the Defendant’s medical care center on a bicycle riding.

B. At the above time, the Plaintiff was faced with an accident of falling off from a bicycle (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered injury, due to the instant accident, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, such as her malm and shoulder open, her malm and shoulder, her sm and shoulder, her bridge, and other details of unknown parts, and open her malm and other parts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, video of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) The possessor of an animal on the basis of the liability for damages shall be liable for damages inflicted upon another person; and

(Article 759(1) of the Civil Act. According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant who neglected the duty of care to take measures, such as taking a bath to prevent the defendant from threatening out of the hospital, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. The limitation of liability, however, in full view of the facts as seen earlier, evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 40% of the Defendant’s liability by taking account of the following, since the location of the instant accident occurred, such as the entrance of a medical care center where people, vehicles, etc. can enter all times, and the width of the road is narrow so that the Plaintiff also has to endeavor to reduce the speed of bicycles in preparation for any collisions that may occur during the operation of bicycles, but the Plaintiff appears to have failed to perform such duties. The Plaintiff’s mistake also caused the occurrence and expansion of the instant damage.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Daily income: 200.

arrow