logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.05.10 2016가합101857
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are the father and mother of the network D (hereinafter “D”), and the Defendant is a person who has agreed to marry with D.

B. D and the Defendant, around November 20, 2015, were accommodated at a F hotel 905 located in Daejeon Seo-gu E, Daejeon on November 20, 2015. At around 23:00 on the same day, they divided the following: (a) around 23:00: (b) around 3 to 4 bottles out of the liquor to drink; and (c) around 01:0 on the following day, she sleep by re-entering in the said hotel.

C. The Defendant reported on the new wall that D can be seen as being from a toilet, set up D into the toilet, and temporarily set up D, and did not report at 119 at that time, or did not move D to the hospital.

On November 21, 2015, the Defendant reported to 119 the entry of D, which took place around 09:10, and reported to 119 via the hotel carter.

G 19 Safety Center Fire fighter H et al. reached around November 21, 2015, around 09:18, and thereafter, D provided cardiopulmonary resuscitations.

At the time, D was “a state in which a vehicle was unable to form the ice and the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body

E. H et al. started with D on November 21, 2015 at the hospital at around 09:30, and arrived at the hospital at around 09:42 on the same day. However, D was dead of cryposis due to cerebral malkyl fever.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The defendant has a duty of care to look closely at the state and physical condition of D as much as he/she was a promise to marry with D.

D In view of the private person of D, at the time when the defendant caused D from a toilet to a new wall, D had not been locked in a toilet, but had already been in a significant condition of life. If the defendant was to undergo medical treatment by moving D to a hospital at the time, D could not have died.

Nevertheless, D.

arrow