[1] The contents of the duty of care to be borne by the athletes participating in the Mad Dominton-type game

[2] The case holding that tort liability is recognized in a case where the real name of a game performer is in line with the other game performer's pockets among the game for Eddridton Doing

[1] In the case of the Rabton-type game in which two people become one team and play a game, which is a dangerous object in a narrow cream, the athletes are obligated to take into account the safety of each other, such as conducting a game in such a way that the tacton's attitude at all times is well examined, and does not inflict any harm on the players. Even in the case of a sports game, if the violation of such duty of care exceeds the limit permitted by social norms, the athletes should be held liable for the tort.

[2] The case holding that tort liability is recognized in a case where a person real name was held in line with the other matchers' pockets among the Mad Dominton-type game

[1] Article 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Young-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

October 2, 2008

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 104,022,086, KRW 3,000, KRW 3000, and KRW 1,000 to the plaintiff 3, and KRW 4 respectively, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from February 18, 2008 to November 20, 208, and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/3 shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 359,571,805 won to the plaintiff 1 and 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff 2, and 2,000,000 won to the plaintiff 3, and 4 with 5% per annum from February 18, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 17, 2008, the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant were members of the Ed Ba-dong club located in Chungcheongnam-si, and formed a single team in the indoor gymnasium in the Madern High School located in the Mad Madton Housing Development Zone, at around 20:50 on Sundays 17, 2008, and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were the counterparts team.

B. At the time, Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant moved to the port from the point where Plaintiff 1 was located in the above Plaintiff 1’s 10’s direction to the port to build a string, and then Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant attempted to cut the string to the port. At this time, the Defendant, who was behind Plaintiff 1, moved to the port to the port to cut off the string of the above Plaintiff 1’s body. At the same time, Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant 1 moved to the port to cut down the string of the above Plaintiff 1, scock to cut the body of the above Plaintiff 1 and scock to cut the string of the said Plaintiff’s body after Plaintiff 1. At the same time, the Defendant’s Rack, facing two persons’ pockets, she sawd Plaintiff 1 with the right side of Plaintiff 1, and she was recovered from the string of the Plaintiff 1.

C. immediately before the accident, Plaintiff 1 is in front of several left parts from the Kot central, and the Defendant was far away from Plaintiff 1 the degree of approximately 2,00,00 from Plaintiff 1, and the two are left knife.

D. Plaintiff 2 is Plaintiff 1’s wife, and Plaintiff 3 and Plaintiff 4 are Plaintiff 1’s children.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 14, Gap evidence 15-1, 2, Gap evidence 18-2, Gap evidence 18-1, 2, Gap evidence 19-1 through 7, Gap evidence 24, Gap evidence 21-2, non-party 3, and 4's testimony, the court's physical examination of this case's Seoul Branch Hospital, the result of the fact inquiry about the Seoul Branch Hospital, the purport of the whole arguments, and the purport of the whole arguments.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Grounds for liability

In the case of the Dominton-type game where two people become one team and play a sport, a dangerous object in a narrow cream, the athletes are obligated to take into account the safety of each other by checking the Domination of team fees at all times and doing sports in a way that does not inflict any harm on the club fees. Even if they are sports games, if such violation of the duty of care exceeds the limit permitted by social norms, such violation of the duty of care shall be held liable as a tort. According to the above facts, the defendant who was behind the game is in the front line of the plaintiff 1's movement, and is in the direction of the above plaintiff 1's movement in the direction of the above plaintiff 1, and even if the above plaintiff 1 acted on behalf of the above plaintiff 1, the above plaintiff 1 was responsible for the above violation of the duty of care by considering the above plaintiff 1's Domination-type's safety as well as the above Domination-type's safety from the above plaintiff 1's body.

In this regard, the defendant argued to the effect that, as sports games are highly likely to cause frequent physical contact or collision between competitors, athletes have impliedly consented to the damages caused by physical contact or collision between athletes which may normally occur, and that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act and thus the illegality is avoided. However, even if the accidents such as physical contact or pockets are often caused by the match between athletes during the Eddton salsing game, the defendant's assertion is not accepted. However, as in the case of this case, even if the other athletes' real names are caused by extremely close distance from the extremely close distance due to violating the duty of safety consideration, it is difficult to view that the athletes have implicitly consented to such damages or taken over such risks, and it is difficult to view such acts as a justifiable act.

B. Limitation on liability

However, in light of the following: (a) the degree of physical contact among the Madminton games is anticipated; (b) the Plaintiff’s above error was an important cause for the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages; (c) the Plaintiff 1 returned to the left side of the Madminton cock; and (d) the athletes in front of the Madminton games did not observe the safety rules that they should not return to the rear; and (d) the Plaintiff did not take measures to protect snow by wearing a security alarm; and (e) the Plaintiff’s inside seat was worn and led to the real name, etc., the Plaintiff’s above error became an important cause for the occurrence of the instant accident and the occurrence of damages; and (e) the Defendant’s compensation amount should be considered in determining the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable; and (e) the ratio is limited to 50% of the Defendant’s total liability to the extent of 50% of the occurrence of the instant accident, etc. as seen earlier.

3. Scope of damages.

In addition to the following separate statements, the damages calculation table and other damages calculation table shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(a) passive damage;

(1) 원고 1의 가동능력에 대한 금전적 평가 : 이 사건 사고 당시 원고 1은 교육공무원으로 강릉 ▷▷중학교의 교사로 재직하면서 급여 및 상여금으로 2007년에 연 39,257,880원의 소득을 올리고 있었으므로(원고들은 위 원고가 연 39,737,880원의 소득을 올리고 있었다고 주장하나, 갑 제12호증의 1, 2의 각 기재만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다) 월 평균 소득은 3,271,490원(= 39,257,880원/12)이 되고 교육공무원법 제47조 제2항 에 의해 가동연한은 62세이다.

(2) Ratio of loss of labor capacity

(a) visual impairment: 24% permanently;

(B) Track disability: Plaintiff 1 asserts that the rate of loss of labor ability due to drilling disability is 60%, and the defendant should not separately recognize the loss of labor ability due to drilling disability in addition to the loss of labor ability due to visual disability, and that it may be improved by antiscopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic sc

(c) Combined loss rate: 39.20%

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, empirical rule, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 9, video of Gap evidence 21-2, result of this court's physical examination of sexual empty hospital, the purport of the whole pleadings

(b) aggressive damage;

(1) Expenses for future treatment;

The plaintiff 1 needs to take anti-scam removal measures for future treatment, and the expected treatment amount can be recognized as a total of 3,620,380 sources of expenses. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above operation was performed by the closing date of pleadings in this case. Thus, the expenses incurred in the above sub-scambling shall be deemed to have been disbursed on the day following the closing date of pleadings in this case on the convenience of calculation

[Reasons for Recognition] The result of the court's entrustment of physical examination of a sexual empty hospital (excluding sexual surgery), the purport of the entire argument

(2) Costs of purchase of assistive devices

As to Plaintiff 1, 700,000 won (=one exchange cost - one million won - three hundred thousand won for purchase of an auxiliary tool paid by the State every five years) may be recognized as necessary every five years for the purchase cost of the bill during the life expectancy (32.6 years after the accident) and the first auxiliary tool is deemed to be purchased on February 17, 2008, which is on the day of the accident, for the convenience of the calculation, the first auxiliary instrument is deemed to be purchased seven times every five years from that time until that of the above Plaintiff’s life. It shall be calculated as the present price at the time of the accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] The result of the request for physical examination of the sexual empty hospitals by this Court (with respect to the proposal) and the purport of the entire argument

(c) Compensation money;

Each determination shall be made as shown in the calculation sheet in the attached Form, taking into consideration the age, details of the accident, the degree and degree of the injury and the aftermath disability of Plaintiff 1, the plaintiffs' family relationship, and other various circumstances shown in the arguments in this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 1 with 104,02,086 won, 3,000,000 won, 1,000,000 won, and 1,000,000 won, respectively, to the plaintiff 3, and 4 as the damages in this case after the date of the tort in this case, it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation in this case from February 18, 2008 to November 20, 2008, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant in this case against the defendant is justified within the above recognized limit, and all remaining claims are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Calculation Table of Damages: (Omission)

(Presiding Judge) If a chief executive officer is appointed