The judgment below

The part against Defendant E is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially accepted by the lower court, the lower court determined that Defendant D and the Defendant E organization (hereinafter “Defendant E organization”) jointly and severally liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, since the instant accident occurred due to Defendant D’s negligence.

Defendant D, an operator of the instant play room that is run for fee, uses the Plaintiff C’s play equipment at the time of the instant accident.

Even though there was an obligation to take measures to prevent accidents and injuries by not falling off or installing sufficient safety devices, etc., the reason was that the instant accident occurred due to negligence.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on tort and causation without exercising the right of explanation, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The legal nature of the victim’s direct right to claim pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act is that the insurer concurrently takes over the insured’s obligation to compensate for damages against the victim, and the victim is the right to claim damages against the insurer, not the insured’s right to change the right to claim insurance against the insurer.

However, the insurer's liability for damages upon such direct claim of the victim is based on an insurance contract, and should be recognized within the insurer's limit of liability under the insurance contract.

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da71951 Decided September 4, 2014; Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da86895, 86901 Decided May 18, 2017). B.

The court below held that the accident of this case occurred due to Defendant D’s negligence, and Defendant E’s organization.