beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) Status A (B) and C (D) are G Child Care Centers operated by E in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant Child Care Center”).
2) The Plaintiff is a corporation established pursuant to the Infant Care Act for the prevention of safety accidents in childcare centers and the compensation work for damage to the life, body, or property of infants and children, and a person who has entered into a mutual aid agreement on safety accidents in childcare centers in relation to the instant childcare center with E.
3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an insurance contract for liability for daily life with a person with parental authority and is at the same time liable for payment of legal damages under the said insurance contract with a person with parental authority and at the same time an insurer who has concluded an insurance contract for liability for damages with the head of the instant childcare center E. B. On February 21, 2014, around 11:10, the circumstances of the instant accident: (a) on the back and back of C in the instant childcare center; and (b) on the back and back of C in the instant childcare center; (c) on the other hand, C took care of 8 weeks; and (d) accordingly, C suffered light executives who did not keep the right side of the instant childcare center requiring eight weeks medical treatment; (c) on May 22, 2014, C paid KRW 4,160,000 as a whole between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who is the insurer of the instant childcare center and the Defendant; (b) on the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 2500, respectively, 2000.
2. The plaintiff's assertion that A person with parental authority has been negligent in neglecting his/her duty to guide and educate his/her family members so that he/she does not engage in any dangerous conduct, such as spawning or running his/her business, and thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of a person with parental authority, is liable to compensate for the damage of C caused by the accident of this case.