(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.09 2017나17022

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.09 2017나17022

위자료

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is operating the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E Hotel (hereinafter “instant hotel”) and Defendant C is an employee (store) working for the instant hotel.

B. On September 27, 2015, the Plaintiff and the wife of the Plaintiff were accommodated in the separate hotel of the instant hotel, and the separate hotel was composed of two rooms, two wards, and two toilets.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was to be accommodated in the hotel of this case on the idea that he would be able to take a bath for brus who are advertised on the homepage of the hotel of this case. However, since the Plaintiff was admitted to a separate book on September 27, 2015, the Plaintiff was not supplied until September 28, 2015, and thus, he could not be seen as a shower for brusing, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to take a bath.

From around 06:00 on September 28, 2015, the Plaintiff left the hotel management room of this case. However, the employees of the hotel of this case were around 06:40 on the same day and 06:40 on the same day, and she was able to take a shower, but the Plaintiff still did not have been able to take a shower. At around 10:00 on the same day, the employees of the hotel of this case did not know such fact.

Defendant C left the hotel of this case on September 28, 2015 and found out whether the Plaintiff’s wife had left the hotel of this case, but did not immediately notify the Plaintiff of this fact, at around 16:00 of the same day, the Plaintiff sent this fact to the hotel of this case.

The Defendants, a lodging business entity, did not provide the Plaintiff with hot water during the accommodation period, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s essential part of the contractual obligation to allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from guest rooms and relevant facilities.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.01.11 2016고정1097 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.26 2018가합541719

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.05 2016고정1097

-수원지방법원 2015.09.24 2015가합61586

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.21 2016나34976