Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Ba, Attorney Kang Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 10, 2018

Jeonju District Court Decision 2015Na52171 Decided August 22, 2017

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

The Defendants jointly pay to Plaintiff 3 4,253,572 won, Plaintiff 1, and Plaintiff 2 50,000 won each of the above amounts, with 5% interest per annum from August 24, 2013 to June 7, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining appeals and the defendants' appeals are all dismissed.

3. One-half of the total litigation costs is borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

5. In accordance with paragraph 1 of the order of the court of first instance, the phrase “joint” shall be corrected to “joint”.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendants pay 84,110,076 won to each of the Plaintiffs 3, respectively, and 5,000,000 won to each of the Plaintiffs 1, and 2, with 5% interest per annum from August 24, 2013 to the service date of the application for amendment of the purport of the instant claim, and 15% interest per annum from the following to the day of full payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 3 1) 32,952,777 won, each of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 4,500,000 won, and each of them shall be 5% per annum from August 24, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: “Plaintiff 1 is the father of Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 2 is the mother of Plaintiff 3, and Defendant 1’s National Federation of Korea Federation of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant 1”) concluded a children’s play facility liability deduction agreement with Defendant 1 on August 31, 2012, providing compensation for KRW 100,000 per capita compensation liability,” among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance; “Defendant 1 and Defendant 1’s National Treasury, who is the insurer, are jointly and severally and severally liable for the payment of KRW 10,00,000 per capita compensation,” and “Defendant 1 and Defendant 1’s National Treasury, which is the insurer, are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment, and this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.”

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate reference, each corresponding column of the attached Table for calculation of damages (hereinafter referred to as "monthly for calculation convenience shall be included in the side on which the appraised value is small, and any amount less than the last month and less than the last won shall be discarded, and the period shall be calculated on a monthly basis, in principle, and the current price calculation at the time of the accident of the damage caused by the above accident shall be in accordance with the simple discount method which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, and the non-statement shall be excluded).

(a) Rate of the loss of labor capacity, and lost income;

1) Personal information: To be stated in the corresponding column of the attached amount of damages calculation sheet.

(b) Income and operating period: Urban daily wage (ordinary wage), 22th day of each month, and 60 years of age;

3) The latter disability and labor disability rate, the parties’ assertion and determination related thereto are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(b) Future treatment costs;

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, but there is no evidence to prove that an operation was performed before the date of closing of argument in this court, etc., it shall be deemed that the future medical expenses were disbursed on the day following the date of closing of argument in this court, and that the aggregate of 5,235

(c) king, king, medical expenses, mutual aid;

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D. Damages on Plaintiff 3’s property: Total 49,410,871 won

(e) consolation money;

(i) the reasons for such consideration;

Considering all circumstances, such as Plaintiff 3’s age, occupation, and the details and result of the instant accident, the part and degree of the subsequent disability, and the relationship between Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3, etc.

(ii) the amount determined;

A) Plaintiff 3: 6,000,000

B) Plaintiffs 1 and 2: Each KRW 1,000,000

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly set forth 5,410,871 won (i.e., 49,410,871 won for property damage + 6,000,000 won for consolation money + 1,000,000 won for each of them and 51,157,299 won for Plaintiff 3, which is the part cited in the judgment of the first instance court, and 500,000 won for Plaintiff 1 and 2, respectively, for the damages for delay calculated from August 24, 2013 to August 22, 2017, which are deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s duty to perform, 5% for each of the instant damages for delay calculated by the court, 15% for each of the instant damages for delay from August 22, 2017 to the date of full payment, 205% for each of the instant damages for delay calculated by the Defendant to the date of full payment (i.e., 2015% for each of the instant damages).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs shall be dismissed as without merit. Since part of the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance which differs from this conclusion is unfair, each of the plaintiffs' appeals shall be partially accepted and each of the above amounts shall be jointly revoked and this court shall order the defendants to pay the money additionally recognized by this court. Since the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are legitimate, the remaining appeal of the plaintiffs and the appeal by the defendants are dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal are without merit

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)

(1) Although the petition of appeal contains 32,952,277 won, in light of the purport of the petition, the cause of the claim, the grounds of appeal, etc., Plaintiff 3 appealed against the first instance court (=84,110,076 won - KRW 51,157,299 won cited in the judgment of the first instance court).