Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Inn & Law, Attorney Kim Il-ri, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

May 13, 2015

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 65,567,542 won with 6% interest per annum from September 14, 2012 to June 5, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 7/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 202,00,000 won with 6% per annum from September 14, 2012 to the service date of the written amendment of the purport of the claim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

1) The Plaintiff is a student who attended ○ University and was in the public notice team of the global hub (hereinafter “instant building”).

2) On June 25, 2012, the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with ○ University (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the following terms and conditions.

【Insurance Policy (Insurance Policy) 【Insurance Policy (Insurance Policy)’s 【Insurance Policy’ in the main sentence: The insurance period from June 26, 2012 to June 16, 2013: 16:00 to June 26, 2013: 200,000 school facilities compensation per person, 2,00,000,000 family medical expenses security (Ⅱ) and insurance conditions: Business Rad University Comprehensive Insurance Policy, Special Terms and Conditions for Internal Medical Care Expense Security (Ⅱ), Additional Terms and Conditions for New Students, etc.

B. Occurrence of the instant accident

On September 13, 2012, the Plaintiff left the instant building at around 2:00, but the door door of the first floor was divingd with the strings, and the security guards did not appear, and thus, the door door of the first floor was not opened. Through emergency stairs, the Plaintiff felled on the wind side of the instant building, where the water tank rooftop of the instant building was cut down by a water tank, and suffered bodily injury, such as subcons, paralysis, damage to the horse gun, and emissions of the instant building No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

C. Current status, etc. at the time of the instant building

1) The instant building had no separate entrance, other than the entrance of the first floor, and there was always a door of the first floor lower than the emergency stairs connecting the instant building and the next water tank building. Therefore, in order to leave the instant building, it was inevitable to pass through the entrance of the first floor or to choose a method of unloading from the rooftop of the water tank connected with emergency stairs, and there was no other alternative.

2) The time of closure of the instant building was from 12:0 to 00 of the new wall from 12:00 to 05:00, and even during the closure hours, the password was input and opened the first floor entrance. However, at the time of the instant building, the door was prevented from being opened without the aid of security guards due to the reduction of hacks.

3) The security guards of the instant building performed security services, including the patrol of the building, from 17:30 p.m. to 05:30 a.m. during working hours, the designated rest period was from 0:30 p.m. to 04:30 p.m.

4) Although the rooftops of the instant building linked to the instant building via emergency stairs are installed with a height of two to three floors, the height was lower than that of students’ key, and trees were planted immediately next to the wall.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 7, 11, Eul evidence 1-1-4, non-party witness's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of an obligation to pay insurance proceeds;

A. Grounds for liability

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the above facts, even though ○ University, which owns and manages the building of this case, has a duty to take measures to control the building taking into account not only the security of the building, but also the convenience and safety of students, it is determined that the Plaintiff was in need of taking excessive measures to lock the 1st floor door of the building of this case due to the decline of the building for the convenience of management, thereby causing the instant accident. As such, ○ University is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident, and the Defendant, as the insurer of the insurance contract of this case, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money equivalent to the amount of damages to the Plaintiff, within the limit stipulated in the insurance contract of this case, pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act.

1) Even if the school is in the course of managing a building in which students study and live, it is deemed that the school is obliged to take measures so that students can get out of the instant building in necessary circumstances, such as emergency situation. The 1st floor entrance door, the only entrance of the instant building, is hacks, making it difficult to leave the instant building, is likely to increase the risk of inconvenience and safety to students who need to leave the building.

2) The Defendant asserts that the 1st floor entrance door can be opened through the security guards. However, it is difficult to expect students to wait for the 1st floor entrance door only through the security guards, or to open the 1st floor entrance door due to the students’ failure to open the studio during the closure hours, not through the regular security guards, but through the patrol of the building. Moreover, it seems unreasonable to expect students to wait for the studio security guards or to open the 1st floor entrance door by finding the security guards during the closure hours.

3) Although it is recognized that there is a need to control the building for the security of the instant building, the security of the building is possible only by means of preventing entry into the inside of the instant building. Nevertheless, prohibiting leaving the inside of the instant building from leaving the outside seems to have been an excessive measure for the convenience of students management rather than for the purpose of the security of the building.

4) Even if the instant building is installed on the rooftop of the water tank adjacent to the instant building, it is difficult to view that the height is too low compared to the student’s key, and thus, it is ordinarily safe.

B. Limitation on liability

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Nonparty’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff appears to have known the circumstances that it is difficult to open the first floor door after the closure and closure of the building of this case, but the accident of this case occurred while trying to leave the building of this case which remains in the building of this case and it was unreasonable to leave the building of this case, and it is difficult to view that ○ University knew or could have easily known that the students knew or could have known about the occurrence and expansion of damages due to the accident of this case, and thus, it is reasonable to consider the scope of damages in determining the scope of ○ University’s compensation for damages in light of all the circumstances indicated in the argument of this case, such as the process of the accident of this case and the result thereof. Therefore, ○ University’s liability for damages should be limited to 80% of 20% of the damages.

3. Scope of liability for damages

In principle, the period of the calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than won shall be discarded. The current price calculation at the time of the accident of the amount of damages shall be in accordance with the fractional interest rate which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month, and it shall be excluded that is not separately described among the parties' claims.

(a) Actual income:

(i) the facts of recognition and evaluation;

(a) Gender: Male;

(b) Date of birth: (Date of birth omitted)

C) Name of lease: until January 9, 2065, 52.36

(d) Income: based on the daily wage of ordinary workers engaged in daily work in the city, and the number of working days shall be deemed to be the 22th day of each month.

E) Labor disability ratio: The Plaintiff received hospitalization and rehabilitation treatment from September 13, 2012 to February 13, 2013, and thus, the above period is recognized as 100% labor disability, and 35% labor disability is recognized due to the drilling damage from that period to that of the operation.

F) Operating period: The Plaintiff’s operating age reaches 60 years of age until June 21, 2046.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 8-1, 2, 9, and 10 of the evidence; the result of the court’s commission of physical examination to the Tolsian Hospital in this Court; the purport of the whole arguments and arguments

(ii)Calculation;

The Plaintiff’s lost income due to the instant accident shall be calculated at the present price at the time of the instant accident (the period shall be calculated on a monthly basis, and the amount below the month shall be discarded) in accordance with the discount method that deducts intermediary interest calculated at the rate of 5/12% among the revenues during the operating period based on the above recognized facts and the details of the assessment, as shown in the attached table of damages calculation.

(b) Expenses for medical treatment;

According to the evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2-2, the Plaintiff spent 43,752,894 won in total from September 13, 2012 to February 13, 2013 (=32,676,664 won + note 1) 11,076,230) as medical expenses for injury suffered by the instant accident.

(c) Expenses for future treatment;

According to the result of the court's physical examination of a character university's leisure hospital, the plaintiff shall continuously undergo various tests and pharmacologic treatment for up to three years in the future, and the physical therapy for three years shall also be concurrently conducted. At its expense for three years in the future, it is expected that the amount of KRW 3,725,417 will be needed every year for three years in the future.

Meanwhile, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff actually received the above treatment until the closing of the argument in this case, and thus, the above treatment costs incurred each year from May 14, 2015, which is the day after the closing of the argument in this case, shall be deemed to have been disbursed each year from May 14, 2015 to the end of the life expectancy, and it shall be KRW 93,82,816 if calculated at the present price at the time of the accident

D. Limitation on liability

As seen earlier, if the responsibility of the ○ University is limited to 20%, the Defendant’s liability for the Plaintiff’s property damage is 60,567,542 won [=302,837,710 won for the Plaintiff’s property damage + KRW 165,262,00 for the Plaintiff’s property damage + KRW 43,752,894 for the first time medical treatment + KRW 93,82,816 for the future medical treatment expenses + 20%];

(e) consolation money;

The amount of consolation money of the plaintiff shall be set at KRW 5,00,000, taking into consideration all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case, such as the background of the accident of this case, the age, degree, degree, and progress of treatment of the plaintiff's injury and disability.

F. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 65,567,542 (=60,567,542 won + solatium 5,00,000) and 65,567,542 won as insurance money (i.e., the Plaintiff’s property damages + KRW 5,000) and damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from September 14, 2012 to June 5, 2015, which is the date of this decision, until June 5, 2015, which is the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge)

1) According to Gap evidence 8-2, the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff at the Central University Hospital are 11,076,230 won discounted from 11,418,724 won to 342,492 won (i.e., 11,418,724 won - 342,492 won, and KRW 342,492).

Note 2) If the treatment costs of KRW 3,884,40 necessary for three (3) years of future treatment costs of KRW 7,609,817 are collected, the subsequent treatment costs of KRW 3,725,417 are deemed to be written in writing.