logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2021.03.18 2020나207360
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal shall be the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this Court is that the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, the facts are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B, who operates the instant bath, did not install a set of equipment to prevent the escape of the instant bath even when the floor of the instant bath was sleeped, and did not put up safety phrases to attract the attention of customers. Moreover, Defendant B did not supervise the employees to put the public bath neglected in the entrance stairs.

B. Due to the defect in the installation of stairs to enter the bath of this case or the negligence of Defendant B, the Plaintiff was subject to the instant accident where the Plaintiff, among the bathing rooms of this case, was left the bath room, was left alone in the stairs to be taken out of the public bath of this case.

(c)

Therefore, Defendant C Co., Ltd., the insurer who purchased the insurance on the instant bathing accident, is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 14,408,900 (i.e., 4,408,900 consolation money of KRW 10,000), and the delayed damages therefrom.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 2, evidence Nos. 4 and 2, evidence Nos. 4 and 2, there are defects in the installation or preservation of stairs entering the bath of this case submitted by the Plaintiff, or negligence on the part of the Defendant B in connection with the instant accident.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants on a different premise is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

A. Access to the bath of this case is not sufficient to ensure the stability to be attached to the bath of this case solely on the ground that the instant bath is a stairs, not an access to the door-to-door from the bath of this case.

arrow