logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.11.16 2017나304435
구상금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Under the National Health Insurance Act, the Plaintiff is an insurer of national health insurance that provides citizens with insurance benefits in relation to prevention of disease and injury, diagnosis, medical treatment, rehabilitation, childbirth, death, and improvement of health.

B is a national health insurance policyholder.

The defendant is a person who operates a restaurant with the trade name of "D" in Busan Metropolitan City.

B. B, around 21:00 on March 3, 2015, while eating with fluor in the above restaurant, she saw hot food, such as a toilet, a brush, a brush, and a air brued, etc., while she was in motion with fluor, and fluorted with an employee of the above restaurant, and fluorted hot national water into her chest, and sustained 2 degrees of images.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

B’s above video treatment costs of KRW 6,341,160 were incurred, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,837,680 to the medical care institution, excluding the Corporation’s charge of KRW 1,503,480 among them.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the occurrence of damages liability, an employee of a restaurant caused the instant accident by neglecting his/her duty of care to prevent heavy food from facing customers, even though he/she had a duty of care to prevent them from suffering from heavy food.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Code, the defendant, the employer, is obligated to compensate B for the damages incurred by the accident in this case.

B. The recognition of the limitation of liability, the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence, namely, ① has a duty of care to ensure its safety by taking into account well the surrounding circumstances when moving from a restaurant and preventing his/her employees or other customers from facing them; ② if B had taken the front part in the process of moving to a toilet, the employee would move a brushe, etc. cooked and gathered in the kitchen, into the dispute.

arrow