beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, D, E, and F, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and, in light of the number or location of warning, signs, placards, etc. around the water play point and the point at which the instant accident occurred, the Do Council, Defendant D, E, and F could have sufficiently predicted the risk of the water-related accident while playing in the instant river, but did not have the students participating in the Taekwondo Arts Association equipped with any safety equipment such as life jackets, etc., and had them play water at a prompt place or dump at least by neglecting the above duty of care to protect the students. As such, the instant accident occurred, which occurred while the net G, who participated in the instant training conference, was in water play, and thus, the Plaintiffs were jointly liable to compensate for damage under Article 70(1) and Article 70(7) of the Civil Act.
In determining, it rejected the claim that there was no possibility of predicting the risk of the occurrence of the dial accident, and limited the liability for damages of the defendant C, D, E, and F to 90%.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation by violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on offsetting negligence or limitation of liability, or by omitting judgment.
2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant Gangwon-do and Hongcheon-gun, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and Defendant Gangwon-do and Hongcheon-gun have fulfilled their duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required in light of social norms in proportion to the risk of the instant river.
As such, the instant case cannot be seen.