The case holding that the Switzerland operator and the manager are liable for damages in respect of accidents in conflict with the calendar operator in the Switzerland;

The case holding that the ice rink operator is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the victim due to the above accident on the ground that the accident caused by the collision with the railroad station operator, because the ice rink operator controls the number of admitted persons at an appropriate level in light of the size and facilities of the ice link, he additionally places safety personnel to the extent that the number of admitted persons increases so that the users do not lead to the reverse operation, and if there is a reverse user, he shall stop it, i.e., if there is a reverse user, and if there is an occasional inspection and verification of the ice ice from time to time, and the accident occurred due to negligence, even though there was a duty of care and supervision and duty of care to prevent the accident caused by the collision between the users, and therefore the ice rink operator is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim due to the above accident.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee dilution, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Hotel Pream Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Seocho, Attorneys Hong Sung-woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 26,152,512 won, the amount of 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, the amount of 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 5% per annum from October 20, 1996 to June 3, 199, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff 1's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant is divided into two parts, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff 1, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant is assessed against the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of 58,494,109 won, the amount of 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, the amount of 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, the amount of 5% per annum from October 20, 1996 to the date of this decision, and the amount of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

(1) Circumstances of the instant accident

(A) At around 17:00 on October 20, 1996, Plaintiff 1, while running and managing the Defendant’s ice link to the opposite direction pursuant to the safety rules, was in conflict with the children who had been active in the direction of visibility in the direction of visibility, resulting in an injury, such as the right-to-hand sloping sloping, etc., by disregarding the net safety rules that stop on the home generated by ice ice scam, and going beyond the ice scam in the direction of visibility.

(B) The net active area of a scopon link is 2,075m2,00 square meters, and 400 to 500 persons per day are admitted and used on a flat day. On the day of the instant accident, even though the number of visitors was rapidly increased on Sundays, the Defendant did not control the number of visitors at a reasonable level, but entered a total of 1,500 persons per day by all persons wishing to use, and at the time of the instant accident, there was about 60 persons using a scopon link at the time of the instant accident.

(C) An accident in which users use a ice rink in a ice link was caused by 1 to 2 cases per day during the scam period (7 to 8 months and 11 to 2 months). At the time of the instant accident, the number of accidents occurred mainly due to 1 to 2 cases during the scambling period. At the time of the instant accident, the ice work conducted for 30 minutes out of the ice cam was not maintained due to the excessive number of people compared to the size of the ice Link, and only 3 safety personnel placed by the Defendant were not able to control the users or respond promptly to safety accidents, disregarding the safety rules. In the instant accident, Plaintiff 1 transferred the ice cam to the outside of the ice cambling by other users who were around the instant accident.

(D) The Plaintiff’s successor is the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Plaintiff’s children are the Plaintiff’s children.

(2) Defendant’s damages liability

According to the above facts, the accident of this case is due to negligence caused by the defendant's control over the number of admitted persons at an appropriate level in light of the size and facilities of ice link, and the safety personnel are additionally assigned to the extent that the number of admitted persons increases so that users do not take a station, and if there is a user who operates a station, he shall stop it, i.e., if there is a user who operates a station, and even if there is an occasion to check and check the condition of ice, check the condition of ice, and conduct ice, to prevent the accident that may occur due to the mutual conflict between users, even though there is a duty of care and supervision and duty of care to prevent the accident in advance, so the

B. Limitation on liability

(1) As Plaintiff 1, even at the time of the instant accident, there was a situation in which excessive number of people entered a ice link and the order is not well observed, and thus, in particular, it was negligent in neglecting it at a safe speed to prevent the collision with other visitors, thereby failing to prevent the collision with children who are active in the opposite direction.

(2) Such negligence of the above plaintiff was caused by the occurrence of the accident of this case. Thus, considering the common living relationship and status relationship of the plaintiffs, the above plaintiff's negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant shall compensate for to the plaintiffs, but it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence exceeds 40%.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 15, Evidence No. 12-1, Evidence No. 12-1, Evidence No. 2-1 through 6, evidence No. 2-1 through 6, witness’s testimony and whole purport of oral argument

2. Scope of damages.

(a) Actual income:

The actual income equivalent to the monetary total appraised value of the capacity to operate in the instant accident is KRW 24,329,738, calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident, based on the following facts and the content of the evaluation as follows: (a) the interim interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month is based on the following facts:

(1) Facts and evaluation of recognition

(a) Gender category: South Korea;

Date of birth: March 5, 1953

Colonel: 43 years of age and 7 years of age at the time of the accident;

Name of rental: 29.79

(b)financial assessment of operating capacity;

From April 10, 1976 to 13 years, the above plaintiff has been engaged in the Dog-type work. From February 1992, the plaintiff has been engaged in the Dog-type work, and it has been engaged in the Dog-type work. The above plaintiff can obtain income of KRW 1,476,486 each month with his Dog-type work for more than 10 years of experience.

(C) Maximum working age

Until he reaches age 60

(d)Ethic disability and operational capacity loss rate;

The latter disability of the right-hand class is 50% of the high-grade class items in the Mblod's assessment table, and the operation ability loss rate is 4.5% for a limited period of five years after the award. The latter disability of the clod's clod's clod's clod's clod's clod's clod's clod's clod's c-A-C's 24% of the operation ability loss rate for three years after the award.

Therefore, the rate of loss of operation capability is 100% from October 20, 1996, which is the date of accident until July 28, 1997, the date after the date after the hospitalization is completed, 27.42% from the next day to October 20, 1999 (=24+76 x 0.045), and 4.5% from the next day to October 20, 201.

[Certificate] Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 9, and 10, 1, 2, and the result of the party members’ physical examination commission to the head of an affiliated hospital of the Gyeonghee University; the purport of the pleading and the empirical rule

(ii) mountain (less than the last month shall be discarded, and less than the last month shall be included in a calculation period in which the value is less than the last month, and less than the original level shall be discarded).

(A) For nine months from October 20, 1996 to July 20, 1997, the date of accident

1,476,486 ¡¿ 1 ¡¿ 8.73 = 13,018,620 won

(B) for twenty-seven months from the day following that date until October 20, 1999

1,476,486 ¡¿ 0.2742 】 (3.477-8.173) = 9,983,823 won.

(C) for 24 months from the day following that date until October 20, 201

1,476,486 ¡¿ 0.045 ¡¿ 53.45-3.477) =1,327,295 won

Consolidated: (A) + (b) + (c) ＋ (24,329,738 won)

(b) aggressive damage;

Expenses for treatment of expenditures: 4,879,250 won

Aftermath cost: 6,045,200 won

Joints: 4,879,250 + 6,045,20 =10,924,450 won

[Evidence] Gap evidence No. 11-17 and the result of the above physical examination

(c) Set-off of negligence;

(a) Set-off ratio: 40%;

(2) mountain.

(24,329,738 +10,924,450) ¡¿0.6 =21,152,512 won

(d) Condolence money;

(1) Grounds for consideration: All the circumstances shown in the arguments in this case, such as the developments of the accident, the degree and degree of the injury and the disability in the aftermath, the treatment period, the degree of negligence of both parties, the plaintiffs' age, family relationship, property, and education.

(2) The amount determined;

Plaintiff 1: 5,000,000 won

Plaintiff Appointers: 2,000,000 won

Plaintiff Park Ho-ri: 1,000,000 won

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant has a duty to pay to the plaintiff 1 26,152,512 won =25,512 +25,000 + 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, and 1,000,000 won to the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 26,152,512 (21,152,512 +00) and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 1,000 won from October 20, 1996, which is the date of the accident of this case to June 3, 1999, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the scope of the obligation to pay, and 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff 1's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is dismissed as the remainder of the claim is without merit. Each of the plaintiff 1, 200 and each of the above claims is justified.

Judges Kang Yong-sung (Presiding Judge)