logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.12.07 2018나905
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following order for payment shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of the whole pleadings);

A. On May 22, 2011, at around 21:30, the Plaintiff examined the Seo-gu Seoul-gu Ground Building owned by the Defendant, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, and opened the underground floor of the above building to the fourth-story rooftop according to the Defendant’s guidance.

B. For the purpose of viewing the next garden of the above building, the Plaintiff suffered the injury to the upper left-hand ruptures of the ruptures that were not found in the rupture due to the rupture of the rupture while leaving the ruptures.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) 2. Determination

A. According to the facts and empirical evidence prior to the occurrence of liability for damages and limitation of liability, the defendant knew of the fact that the above studio building and the vegetable garden owner, and the time when the accident of this case occurred, the defendant himself was at night, and the plaintiff went beyond the pool, but the plaintiff suffered bodily injury. According to the facts of recognition, although the defendant has a duty to pay due attention to prevent the plaintiff from falling off or getting out of the pool due to the plaintiff's failure to perform such duty, the defendant was negligent in failing to perform such duty, which led the plaintiff to suffer bodily injury.

(A) As long as the Defendant’s general tort liability is recognized, the part of the claim based on the structure liability is not separately determined. However, since the Plaintiff was also in office at the night, the distance with the Defendant would have been narrow and narrow, if the accident of this case would have not occurred or suffer minor injury, and the Defendant’s liability would have been limited to 80% of the total amount of damages by taking into account the type and degree of the injury suffered by the Plaintiff, and other principles of the good faith and the fair apportionment of damages.

(b) Compensation for damage;

arrow