beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant D non-damage Insurance Co., Ltd. is revoked, and that part is revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation that manages and operates the national health insurance business; Defendant A is a person who operates the “C”, which is a water-related leisure business entity located in Gyeongbuk-gun B; Defendant D non-life insurance company (hereinafter “D non-life insurance”) is a corporation that is incorporated with its main purpose of insurance business.
B. On June 27, 2014, Defendant DB insurance concluded a comprehensive water-related leisure insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) between Defendant A and Defendant A, with the content of the insurance period from June 27, 2014 to August 31, 2014, including ① the insured Defendant A (C), ② the insurance period from June 27, 2014 to August 31, 2014, ③ the basic security for water-related leisure craft damages, the large amount of compensation KRW 150,000,000 for himself/herself, and KRW 10,000.
In the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case, Defendant D non-life insurance shall compensate for damages sustained by Defendant A by bearing legal liability for damages to the users of insured water leisure crafts due to an insured event occurred due to the possession, use, or management of water leisure crafts listed in the insurance policy
(Article 29) specified.
C. At around 15:30 on July 20, 2014, D, under the direction of C’s staff E, while staying in GF located in the Gyeong-gun of Gyeongbuk-gun with a power-free beam line, D was faced with the upper part of D while staying in the front of the H river and withdrawing rest, and the head was faced with the upper part of D, which was under the water speed of the head, and suffered injury, such as a sexual cerebrovassis and a scarcity with no open address (hereinafter “instant accident”). D.
At the time of the instant accident, D had worn a glick, a basic protective device, but did not have any safety device for grack, and the gracker E was anchored at the bar without any particular explanation of the precautions for gracking, and there was no advice, etc. related to grack around the location of the instant accident.
E. The Plaintiff from September 18, 2014 to September 2015.