2015 Ghana8522 Damage (as defined)

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

September 27, 2016

October 18, 2016

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 50, 720, 700 won, 10,000 won, 3, 400 won, 5,000, 000 won, 5,000 won, and 00 won, respectively, for each of the above amounts from December 28, 2014 to the service date of the written application for modification of the lawsuit in this case, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of delivery of the written application for modification of the lawsuit in this case.

1. Basic facts

A. From December 2, 2014, Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as the images of the part of the breath, in detail known breath, images of the breath, and visualless parts of the breath, which were administered by the Defendant from around December 2, 2014, due to a fire that occurred at approximately 08:30 square meters in December 28, 2014 (hereinafter “the fire in this case”). The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the breath’s disease, hair, hair, head, and part of the breath’s breath’s disease, hair, which are accompanied by food infection.

B. Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, and E are children of Plaintiff A.

【Unsatisfy-applicable fact-finding, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 5, Gap evidence 14-1, Eul evidence 1-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Plaintiff A leased the instant room from the Defendant for the purpose of temporary use. The Defendant, a lessor’s interest lodging business entity, has a duty to manage and maintain accommodation and ancillary facilities so that the lessee does not cause any harm to the Plaintiff’s life and body. However, the Plaintiff A, a lessee, at a high-priced level, was injured as seen above due to a fire that occurred in the instant room. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs suffered the same loss as indicated in the attached damages list. This is caused by the Defendant’s incomplete performance of the lodging contract concluded with the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for the amount of damages as stated in the claim and damages incurred therefrom.

(b) Determination:

A lodging contract entered into with an accommodation business entity, which is a hotel business entity, is an incidental duty recognized by the principle of good faith to provide customers with accommodation, so that accommodation business entities may provide them with accommodation and to allow them to use it at a time, and a lease contract for the use of a kind of accommodation for their customers’ price is placed under the sole control of the accommodation business entity. As such, the accommodation business entity is obliged to provide a simple guest room, such as a through lease, and related facilities, and to allow the customers to use and benefit from such guest room and related facilities. Furthermore, the accommodation business entity bears the duty to protect the safety of the customers by providing safe and comfortable guest rooms and related facilities without any danger to the customers. Such duty is an incidental duty recognized by the principle of good faith, taking into account the nature of the accommodation contract, and the accommodation business entity bears the burden of default due to incomplete performance in cases where the accommodation business entity violated his/her life and body and caused damage to the guests, and in such cases, the victim is obligated to prove and prove the existence of the specific duty to protect the victim and the violation thereof, and 20.

In light of the above facts and the above legal principles, the defendant is obligated to protect the defendant's safety by providing safe and comfortable guest rooms and related facilities so that the plaintiff's life and body does not cause harm to the plaintiff's life and body pursuant to the accommodation contract concluded with a person engaged in accommodation business. Thus, if the defendant suffered damage to the plaintiff A by violating the above duty of protection, the defendant is liable to compensate for such damage.

Therefore, as to whether the Defendant violated the duty to protect the Plaintiff A, it is difficult to conclude that the instant fire occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence in managing the instant electrical equipment. However, if evidence No. 5 was added to the statement No. 1, it is reasonable to view that the instant fire was generated by electrical heat and flames. However, it is limited to the case where the possibility of outbreak of the instant fire was excluded, and thus, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office did not establish the possibility of outbreak by human acts. In light of the fact that the instant fire was destroyed by the Defendant’s negligence, it is difficult to conclude that the instant fire was destroyed by electrical factors, such as the Plaintiff’s failure to protect the Plaintiff’s electrical equipment at the time of the instant accident. However, it is difficult to view that the first point of view that the Plaintiff’s fire, which was a fire manager, had been exposed to the Plaintiff’s 1’s negligence in the process of spreading the fire to the extent that the fire was destroyed by the Defendant’s 1’s fire, and that the Plaintiff’s first point of view was likely to 20 minutes.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant of this case is without merit and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judges Noh Tae-kon

Schedule of Attached Damage Compensation

A person shall be appointed.