logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.16 2019나7999
구상금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that concluded a comprehensive insurance contract between October 22, 2012 and October 22, 2017, with the insured as a door store C between the door store and C (hereinafter “C”).

In the above insurance contract, a special term "liability for the manager of facilities" is the subject of guaranteeing "actual damages sustained by the insured who bears legal liability for damages to another person's body or property due to a sudden accident that occurred due to the use of facilities owned, used, or managed by the insured and the use of such facilities."

B. The Defendant is an insurance company that concluded a contract for liability insurance for daily life with D as the insured.

C. At around 10:53, April 4, 2017, E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) took part in the action that was carried out by an instructor G while taking lessons from the 3 and 4th floor of the F building in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu (hereinafter referred to as “victim”), he was faced with D and D, even with D, and her legs, and her arms were laid off, and the victim was hicked by her arms, and the victim was hicked, and was injured by the 2nd pressure pressure.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

Until November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 29,255,000 for the damage incurred by the victim due to the instant accident according to the insurance contract between the door-to-door store and C.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, D, who had been engaged in the instant action by becoming a victim and partner, had a duty of care to prevent the victim from being injured, had been exercised with her her m and her m and so on, instead of her m and her m and so on. Such D’s negligence was the cause of the instant accident.

If so, D and C.

arrow