logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.12.15 2016가단205127
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the owner and operator of the "Dcafeteria" located in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-gu (hereinafter in this case, and the plaintiff is the son of the above restaurant.

B. In the first instance trial on June 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered a toilet to use the toilet located in the restaurant after providing the shots and meals at the instant restaurant, and sustained the injury by getting out of the room.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, witness E and F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. As to the plaintiff's cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion entered the toilet of this case into the toilet floor of this case, and caused a lot of water on the toilet floor, resulting in which the plaintiff sleeped and slicked the left side, resulting in a slick slock and tension on the side side of the side side of the left side, a slock and tension, and a slick slock and tension

Considering that laundry is installed in the above toilet and the laundry is placed in the line, it is highly likely to reduce the floor because it can be seen that not only laundry but also the family members of the defendant and the defendant have laundry and shower.

The defendant, as an operator of a restaurant, could sufficiently be predicted that son often uses toilets, so even though he had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident by removing the part of the water slicking the floor of the toilet, he did not cause the accident to be caused by the gold accident.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the testimony and arguments of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of Eul, witness E and F, the restaurant of this case consists of a family house, and the plaintiff, his day-to day-day G and E provide meals in the table located in the ward, and ② There are toilets in one room located in one room, and laundry and three laundry and three laundry.

arrow