(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.09.04 2019나10118

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.09.04 2019나10118

손해배상(기)

Text

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 5,955,041 and its amount from September 29, 2017.

Reasons

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a person operating the Seopo City Cpenta, and the Plaintiff is a person who was accommodated in the said penta as scheduled from around August 20, 2017 to around 3 days. 2) On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff was subject to an accident where the Plaintiff was her penta while she was her back and was faced with the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

3) The Plaintiff was diagnosed by the E Hospital located in Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, Einpo-si, the surface of the left-hand part of the water unit, the surface of the back-hand part of the back-hand part, the surface of the back-hand part of the base, the base of the base of the base of the base of the base of the base of the base of the river, and the base of the base of the base of the base of the base of the river. 4) On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff was hospitalized in the G Hospital located in Yangcheon-gu, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, by the G Hospital on August 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 19 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, the above owner, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff was hospitalized for a long time compared to the name of disease or the expected treatment period stated in the circumstance or diagnosis of the instant accident is due to the Plaintiff’s peculiar transfer or spawn, and thus, the amount of damages should be reduced. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant (each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, including the land number), alone, is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was specialized transfer at the time of the instant accident, or there was spawn evidence, and rather, the evidence and evidence No. 24 as mentioned above.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.06.02 2016구합22422

-서울행정법원 2017.01.13 2015구단54127

-대구지방법원 2020.09.23 2020고정707

-대구지방법원 2019.02.12 2018고정1366

-제주지방법원 2017.02.16 2016고정645