2010Da56494 Compensation (as stated)

1. ○○;

2. Maximum○○.

Plaintiffs’ Address Seoul Central Government

[Defendant-Appellant]

$ US$ US$ 200

Seoul Jongno-gu

The representative director omitted

Attorney omitted

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na5337 Decided June 17, 2010

September 13, 2012

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant or his employees violated the duty of care to sufficiently explain directions in using a hotel accommodation and to take account of the safety of travelers' safety in light of the following: (a) the defendant's overseas tour guide and local guide did not explain to the deceased, the time of using a hotel swimming pool or swimming pool, directions in the use of a swimming pool, emergency response methods in the event of an emergency, and the fact that safety personnel are not on duty after the given time of use; (b) rather, they mean that they can receive swimmings at night at night on the day of the accident, and there is no safety equipment or safety personnel at the time of the accident; and (c) there is no safety personnel at the time of the accident and there is no rescue and first aid.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and records, namely, the hotel swimming pool in this case is less than 2 meters in the maximum depth, and the width is not broad, the swimming pool operation hours are entered from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. in the guide book kept in the hotel room, and it seems that the defendant explained that the local guide of the defendant's local guide cannot limit the use of swimming pool at night at night at the hotel, and it is difficult to view that the deceased's local guide does not have a duty to explain the risk of the death of the deceased in the above form of safety and safety in light of the fact that he did not have a duty to explain that he did not have the above duty to the above type of safety and health of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that held that the defendant or his employee violated the duty of explanation and safety consideration against the deceased, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the duty of explanation and the contents and scope of the duty of safety consideration of travel agencies and their employees, which affected the conclusion

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Park Young-young