logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.07.19 2017가단101768
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' arguments are the spouses and children of the deceased H.

H On May 15, 2016, after one hour after the defendant's entry into the Sainna operated by the defendant, died of a acute funeral in the hot spring.

At the time, the Deceased was in a state of 0.216% alcohol concentration. The Defendant, a public health business entity, was obligated not to allow the position of “a person deemed difficult to use a public bath due to drinking, etc.” as prescribed by the Public Health Control Act and the sanitary control standards set out in attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, but in violation of this, the Deceased’s position at the time was allowed, whose blood alcohol concentration was 0.216%.

Therefore, since the deceased died due to the defendant's violation of the duty of customer protection, the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money to the plaintiffs who jointly inherited the deceased.

2. Determination as to the defendant's violation of duty to protect customers

A. The soup of relevant legal principles is provided with various facilities, such as a soup room, bath room, rest room, water surface room, low temperature or high temperature room, film room, and marina room, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a “person who is deemed to have difficulty in normal use due to drinking, etc.,” in which access is prohibited by the general public for the purpose of the use of all or part of these facilities. In light of the fry, drinking, speaking, smelling, etc., it can be deemed as a person who is recognized as having considerable degree of exploitation and is difficult to use various facilities within a soup or is deemed as having reached such a degree that it is difficult to use them normally or is likely to interfere with the use of others’ making soup.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da79316 Decided February 11, 2010). B.

In this case, in order to recognize the violation of the defendant's obligation to protect customers, the status of the deceased when the defendant or the defendants entered the Ba's ticket box.

arrow