logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.21 2015가합577120
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant New Daily Co., Ltd.: KRW 148,818,619 and its amount from August 7, 2013 to April 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant New Art is a company engaged in water-related leisure business, etc., and Defendant Dongdong Fire is an insurance company.

B. Defendant New Daily entered into a water-related leisure comprehensive insurance contract (securities number: 56212001970) (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with Defendant Dongdong Fire during the period from April 1, 2013 to April 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

Of the matters covered by the instant insurance contract, the basic security for water leisure craft damages (person) is a liability insurance to compensate for damages to the users (the pilot, the passenger, and the passenger of the water leisure craft) caused by an insured water leisure craft such as the possession, use, or management of the insured water leisure craft such as wake (powered-powered driving method) by Defendant New Zealand. The maximum amount of compensation per person is KRW 100,000,000.

C. On August 7, 2013, the Plaintiff, as a paid user of Defendant New Zealand, attempted to take a wake line action, among the wakeboards, an insured water leisure craft under the insurance contract of this case, while having attempted to take a wake line action, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as blood and trauma, cerebral typosis, and typosis, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff experienced experience of using 3 to 4 years , and B, as a water-related leisure cocoin belonging to Defendant New Art, five years of experience, engaged in driving the said motor boat at a speed inside 32 km per hour, with three gallon users, including C, on the motor boat towing the said wad, for the purpose of galgr galgr wad users’ occupancy-line actions. In addition, the said motor boat was driven at a speed outside 32 km per hour.

E. The Plaintiff did not wear a safety cap at the time of the instant accident, and did not receive specific safety education.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap 2 to 14, 16 to 20, and Eul 1 to 4.

arrow