(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2010.7.7.선고 2009가합684 판결

2. The defendant social welfare foundation 00 shall pay to the plaintiff 458, 456, 646 won with 5% interest per annum from August 16, 2007 to July 7, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 00 Gu and the remaining claims against the defendant social welfare foundation 00 shall be dismissed, respectively.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 00 Gu and Defendant 000000 shall be borne by the Plaintiff. Of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Social Welfare Foundation 0000, 2/3 of the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Social Welfare Foundation 00, the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim

The Defendants filed the instant lawsuit with respect to KRW 1,010, KRW 105, and KRW 369 against each Plaintiff, and the said amount from August 16, 2007.

Until the delivery date of the books of account, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

H. H. H. H.D.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Before the instant accident, the Plaintiff is a person with a developmental disability of the first degree with a mental retardation and the extension disorder of 165 cm with the birth of 000,000,000, 165 cm, 70 gg from the body, and 6 years intellectual level. The Plaintiff was subject to a judgment of non-fluoral scarcity and a fluoral scarcity, and was under tracking observation and treatment in the outpatient of the 00 hospital.

2) Before the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, alone, had a daily life, such as lusium management, meals, clothes, sponsing, sponsing, sponsing, and commuting, and could have expressed his intent with basic words necessary for daily life, with the help of teachers, and was able to use Schlages, financial institutions, convenience facilities, etc. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was able to have opened for five years from the second to the third year of the middle school, actively participated in the Boscopout activities, and was able to improve the learning activities by actively participating in the Boscopout activities. Around 207, the Plaintiff was punished by KRW 173,36 in total by means of spopphone-phone packing, etc.

C. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Foundation

Defendant Social Welfare Foundation 00 Welfare Foundation (hereinafter “Defendant Foundation”) is a foundation for the purpose of operating vocational rehabilitation facilities for persons with developmental disabilities. The Plaintiff was entrusted to Defendant Foundation on January 16, 2006 by the Plaintiff’s parents, Nonparty Kim 00, and Han 00, and was under rehabilitation treatment while living in the OO work facilities operated by Defendant Foundation. Meanwhile, at the time of entrustment, the Plaintiff’s parents did not notify the Defendant Foundation of the fact that there was a non- pursuant to the Non- pursuant to the Non- pursuant to the Non- pursuant to the Non- pursuant to the provision of the O work facilities.

D. The relationship between the Plaintiff, Defendant 00 Gu, and Defendant 5

The swimming pool in Seoul 000 Culture and Sports Center (hereinafter referred to as the “instant swimming pool”) is owned by Defendant 00 Gu, and on January 1, 2007, Defendant 00 entered into an entrusted management and operation agreement with Defendant 00 Urban Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Corporation”) on January 1, 2007, on the entrusted management and operation agreement with Defendant 00 Culture and Sports Center. Accordingly, Defendant 00 operates the above sports hall, and Defendant 00 supervised the implementation of the above entrusted management agreement on the said facility.

E. The defendant foundation of this case 1) as part of the social adaptation training and basic physical training program for disabled persons. The defendant foundation of this case is part of the basic physical training program for disabled persons.

In the swimming pool of this case, under the supervision of 3 teachers affiliated with Defendant Foundation, 11 persons with disabilities, including the plaintiff, were allowed to receive the swimming pool of this case.

2) The plaintiff on the same day 13: 38 : 35 m in width, about 5m in length, about 5m in depth, and about 60m in depth, and 13: 39 :35 : 39 : 35 : 39 : 13. The plaintiff lost the awareness that the plaintiff was suffering from the heart sprinking after drinking water.

3) From 45 seconds to 13: 40 : At around 20, the head of the leading teacher of the defendant foundation found the plaintiff, and at around 13:40, at around 35, the plaintiff brought the plaintiff out of the infant pool (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

4) While the safety personnel of Defendant Corporation contact 119, one other safety personnel provided cardiopulmonary resuscitation to the Plaintiff. At around 13:50, around 119 rescue units arrive, the Plaintiff transferred to the hospital after receiving emergency treatment at 00 university 000 hospitals.

5) The Plaintiff received treatment at a hospital of 000 from August 16, 2007 to July 11, 2008 from the internal department and rehabilitation department. On December 24, 2007, the Plaintiff was transferred to a rehabilitation hospital of 00 for long-term rehabilitation treatment, and was transferred to a rehabilitation hospital of 00 for long-term rehabilitation treatment.

11. From 11. to 3.00 hospitals are under medical treatment.

F. As a result of the court’s commission of physical appraisal of the Plaintiff’s injury, the Plaintiff’s injury caused by the instant accident is as follows in full view of the fact-finding reply results on the results of the above physical appraisal commission and the purport of the entire pleadings.

○ physical condition: A person cannot, alone or alone, be able to understand the content of the accident, and without being communication enough to grasp the content of the accident, can not carry out the basic action for the maintenance of life, such as the urinal gate, eating, walking, walkinging, driving, blopping, and clothes, with a long time. A person can not express his/her intent to breath, urine, etc., and can keep him/her away from the food, but can do so for a long time.

○: The diagnosis of the maximum mental retardation, the damage to the scarcity, the damage to the scarcity that is not classified differently, the detailed unknown scarcity, the scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarke, the necessity of future treatment: In light of the Plaintiff’s social adaptation and physical ability before the accident occurred, the Plaintiff’s symptoms present are considered to be related to the accident, and thereby, affect all the life of the Plaintiff. At present, the symptoms of the scarma and sports practice, the symptoms of the scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcitys, and the scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarcity scarbic treatment is necessary.

Whether it is necessary to take care of a nurse and a medical assistant: The plaintiff needs to take care of 24 hours because the plaintiff can not carry out well alone the basic action for the maintenance of life, such as food, boom, food, eating, learning, and clothes. It is necessary to take care of the wheelchairs such as wheelchairs.

The average lifespan of ○: A disability grade 1 was judged as a mental body prior to the accident, but at that time, the content of disability grade determination at that time is not lost, and the impact of an accident on the average lifespan due to the need for partial nursing, can be seen as 63.3% of the 63% of the 63th can be seen as the name of a person who is boomed in the middle of boom by Straus.

The presumption of the reduction of ○’s work ability: The Plaintiff cannot calculate the change of his work ability in the class 1 of the same disability resulting from the accident as the class 1 disability prior to the accident.

If 100% after ○, the degree of transfer can be seen as a few percent: the current state is necessary for 24 hours. Therefore, if the present state is compared with the estimated state of transfer, it can be seen as 1/3 as 3% and 33.3%.

○ An appraisal’s evaluation of the Plaintiff’s female life as 63.3% may be deemed to have taken into account all heart diseases and kidney disorders, which are diseases the Plaintiff was in king.

In addition, it is difficult to find whether the deep suspension was caused by the deep suspension due to the non-explosive symptoms occurring during physical sports or not.

G. The Plaintiff’s father Kim Jong-Un filed a petition for adjudication of incompetency with the Plaintiff as the principal of the case, and the said court declared the Plaintiff as an incompetent on June 9, 2010, by which the Plaintiff was declared incompetent.

【In the absence of any dispute over the facts alleged in the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-1 through 3, 4, 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 8 through 12, 13-1, 2, 15, 16-1, 2, 17, 18, 24 through 27, 28-1, 29, 30, Eul evidence 2, 10, 10, 1 through 3, 4-1 through 4-3, Gap evidence 2, 6-1 through 29, 14-1, 6-1 through 8-8, the result of this court’s reply to the fact-finding, the purport of this court’s response to the fact-finding of the whole hospital as a result of the fact-finding, the fact-finding of the entire examination of the body of the hospital.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In regard to the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the instant accident, Defendant 00 is a person responsible for nonperformance of obligation or public structures pursuant to Article 5(1) of the State Compensation Act, Defendant 2 is a tort, and Defendant 1 is an employer liability pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense prior to the merits

A. Determination as to the defense prior to the merits of the Defendant Corporation

1) Defendant Corporation has asserted against Defendant Corporation that the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit against Defendant Corporation was unlawful due to its violation of the Collegiate Agreement.

In light of the overall purport of the arguments in each of the statements in Eul, Eul, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 17, Eul evidence No. 18-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, the defendant Corporation, on May 15, 2008, refers to "the supplementary action agreement of this case between the non-party Kim 00 who is the plaintiff's parent, and HanO" (hereinafter referred to as "the supplementary action agreement of this case").

At the same time, the Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste Meste

31. up to May 23, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract for local government liability of KRW 8,352,862, and KRW 000,000 for total insurance premium. According to the Plaintiff’s husband’s father’s father’s father’s right to receive insurance proceeds and other rights under the insurance contract regarding the instant accident, the Defendant Corporation delegated all of the Plaintiff’s father’s right to receive insurance proceeds and other rights. On May 23, 2008, the Plaintiff’s mother delegated KRW 59,900,000 from fire, and the Plaintiff received KRW 59,900,000 from fire. The fact that the Plaintiff was delegated by the Plaintiff with respect to the agreement on the instant secondary action does not conflict between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants.

Therefore, each lawsuit against the Defendant Corporation is unlawful because it violates the Collegiate Agreement, and there is no benefit of protection of rights.

2) As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the above non-prosecution agreement was made on the premise that "the defendant foundation should compensate the plaintiff for the remaining amount of damages," so the agreement does not take effect due to non-performance of the condition. However, unless there is any evidence proving that the above non-instigation agreement had the condition of the plaintiff's argument, the above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of Defendant 00’s defense prior to the merits

1) Heading

The defendant 00-gu provides that since the above 00-party 00-party 00-party 00-party 00-party 00-party 00-party 00-party 00-party 00-party 00 party 00 party

① Based on the above agreement, Defendant 00-gu Office and Defendant 2 as joint insured, the insurance company agreed with the Plaintiff’s parents, and the Plaintiff’s parents were also aware of this fact. Since the Plaintiff’s health condition has deteriorated or changed after the Plaintiff’s introduction of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff waivered the Plaintiff’s rights to Defendant 00-gu Office. ② Defendant 00-gu and Defendant 2 concluded the above and the management and operation contract for the facility operation of the cultural and sports center in which the instant accident occurred on January 1, 2007, and ③ the Plaintiff’s parents also agreed impliedly to add Defendant 00-gu to the Plaintiff, taking into account all the circumstances. ④ At the time of the agreement, the Plaintiff was in a state of plant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s parent should be deemed to have agreed on behalf of the Plaintiff under the social norms and the good faith principle.

On the other hand, a juristic act shall be reasonably interpreted by the parties regardless of the parties' internal intent, the objective meaning which the parties gave to the act of expression should be reasonably interpreted, and in particular, more strict interpretation should be made in cases where the content of the contract claimed by one party imposes a serious liability on the other party (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33607 delivered on January 19, 2001).

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the above sub-committee agreement (Evidence No. 1) contains no explicit indication as to the defendant 00's liability for damages, and that the counter-party to the waiver of the right is "the counter-party to the waiver of the right." The defendant 00 section is the subject of separate rights and obligations from the defendant Corporation, KimO, the plaintiff's parents, and HanO made the above sub-committee agreement with the intent to waive the right to damages against the defendant 00's right to damages caused by the accident in this case.

In light of the lack of view, it is difficult to see that the agreement on the action of this case extends to the defendant 00-Gu, and each of the statements in Eul evidence 17, Eul evidence 18-1, Eul evidence 18-2, Eul evidence 19-1, and Eul evidence 19-2 shall not interfere with the above recognition.

Therefore, the above assertion by Defendant 00 is without merit.

C. Determination on the defense prior to the merits of the Defendant Foundation

1) The defendant foundation only has the mental capacity of the degree of six years of age to the degree of infant, and thus, the plaintiff is not deemed to have been filed by a person who has no litigation capacity, since he has no mental capacity to file the lawsuit in this case.

I asserts that it is called.

In the course of the continuation of this case, the Plaintiff’s father Kim 000 court with the Plaintiff as the principal of the case.

As seen earlier, the above court declared the plaintiff as incompetent on June 9, 2010. Since it is clear that the plaintiff's legal representative Kim0, 100, and his legal representative confirmed litigation at the date of pleading of this case, the above defense is without merit. 2) The defendant foundation also claims that this lawsuit is unlawful since the plaintiff's parent and the defendant foundation agreed to bring an action against the accident of this case. Thus, according to the Eul evidence No. 3, the above court's statement that the plaintiff's parent Kim 00, 100, and 100 "the plaintiff's parent Kim 3" was signed and sealed at the time when the plaintiff was admitted to the facilities of the defendant foundation, but it is hard to see that the above written consent of this case is "the defendant foundation's admission to facilities of the plaintiff's parent and the defendant foundation or the defendant foundation without any significant reason to prove that the above written consent of this case was a waiver of the contract of this case or an accident of this case."

3) The defendant foundation needs to obtain permission from the Minister of Health and Welfare to execute the basic property of the defendant foundation. Since the Minister of Health and Welfare does not permit execution, the lawsuit of this case is a defense prior to the conclusion that there is no benefit of the lawsuit.

However, even if there is no possibility of execution by the defendant, if the plaintiff has a possibility of voluntary performance, there is a benefit to seek performance by lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da20955 delivered on July 13, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 98Da23393 delivered on September 22, 1998, etc.), and under the Social Welfare Services Act, a public interest corporation cannot dispose of "basic property" without permission from the competent authority, and the creditor of the public interest corporation can obtain satisfaction of claims from ordinary property, not the basic property of the public interest corporation at any time with the title of execution, and can not be viewed as a disposition of basic property of the public interest corporation under the above Act. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

4. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Determination on the responsibility of Defendant Foundation

1) The fact that the defendant foundation entrusted the plaintiff with rehabilitation treatment, the fact that the defendant foundation allowed the plaintiff to take care of the swimming pool of this case for social adaptation training and basic physical training is as seen above. The swimming pool is a place where accidents are not likely to occur even in the general public; there is an increase in risk of loss of balance in the case of mentally handicapped persons who are not able to do so; the defendant foundation is a particularly established foundation for mentally disabled persons; the leading teachers of the defendant foundation are those with expertise in protecting and supervising mentally disabled persons; thus, the leading teachers of the defendant foundation can be sufficiently anticipated that accidents such as the accident of this case, which are merely six years of age, can occur to the plaintiff, and the defendant foundation failed to take care of the plaintiff's situation and failed to take care of the situation of the accident of this case, and the plaintiff foundation's duty to take care of the defendant foundation's failure to take care of the situation of the accident of this case, and the plaintiff foundation's duty to take care of the defendant foundation's failure to take care or to take care of the defendant foundation's's.

3) Furthermore, with regard to whether there exists a causal relationship between the above negligence and the damage, it is difficult to view that the accident of this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s non-defensive symptoms, and the fact-finding process of this case’s verification, and the results of the physical examination commission to the Dab Hospital and the fact-finding inquiry inquiry results, in full view of the whole purport of the arguments, the Plaintiff can verify the fact that the Plaintiff used water without drinking water, and the purport of the whole physical examination commission and inquiry inquiry, and it is difficult to view that the accident of this case was committed solely due to the Plaintiff’s non-defensive symptoms, and it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case occurred due to the lack of evidence Nos. 7-2, 9-1, 10-1, 13-1, 14-1, 15-1, 10-1, 15-1, 15-1, 45-1, and 45-1 of the above evidence No.

4) Therefore, the Defendant Foundation, the employer of the above leading teachers, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.

B. Determination on the liability of Defendant 00

1) The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) Defendant 00 is liable for nonperformance as it violated the Plaintiff’s duty to protect under the swimming pool use contract; and (b) the instant swimming pool did not meet the safety ordinarily required according to its intended purpose; and (c) the instant accident occurred; and (d) is liable for damages pursuant to Article 5 of the State Compensation Act.

2) In full view of the records on the evidence No. 2, Defendant 00 as to whether Defendant 00 is liable for the nonperformance of obligation, and the purport of the entire pleadings, Defendant 00-Gu is 207.

1. 1. Recognizing the fact that an entrustment contract was made with the Defendant Corporation on the instant swimming pool with the following terms:

B) In full view of the fact that Defendant 00 received part of the proceeds of the swimming pool in this case from the Defendant Corporation, and that Defendant 00-Gu invested in full and established by Defendant 00-Gu, Defendant 00-Gu can be seen as exercising active guidance and supervision over the swimming pool in this case as the owner of the swimming pool in this case, and managing the swimming pool in this case together with the Defendant Corporation. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant swimming pool use contract was concluded between Defendant 00-Gu, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no room to deem that Defendant 00-Gu bears the duty to protect the Plaintiff in addition to the contractual relationship.

Ultimately, without having to further examine the remainder of the argument by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit. 3) Whether Defendant 00’s public structure is liable.

1) "Defects in the construction or management of a public structure" under Article 5 (1) of the State Compensation Act means that the public structure has no safety ordinarily required for its use. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the construction or management of a public structure merely because the public structure has a defect in its function without a complete condition. Whether such safety is satisfied should be determined based on whether the installer or manager has fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion to the danger of the public structure in light of the purpose of use of the public structure in question, the current status of the installation and the situation of its use. In light of the relationship with the public structure in question, the person who installs and manages it, or the financial, human, physical, etc. of the person who installs and manages it, it is sufficient to say that the public structure has a relative safety expected method to use it, and in view of objectively and objectively, there is no possibility and possibility of a loss due to a defect in its function, i.e., a defect in the construction or management of the public structure. 205.

2) According to Article 26 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, a sports facility business entity shall assign a sports leader to a sports facility of a size not smaller than that prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (paragraph (1) and matters necessary for the standards for placement of a sports leader under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (paragraph (2)). Accordingly, in the standards for placement of a sports leader under attached Table 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act, a swimming pool business entity shall assign not less than one person in cases where the swimming tank floor area is not more than 400 square meters and not less than two persons in cases where the swimming pool area exceeds 400 square meters. Meanwhile, according to the standards for facilities of a sports facility business under attached Table 4 of the said Enforcement Rule, a monitoring tower for viewing the entire swimming tank for the safety of users shall be installed in a swimming pool business, and according to safety and sanitary standards in attached Table 7, a water safety manager (referring to a person who has received education on water safety at the Korean Red Cross or the Association under Article 37).

3) According to the facts acknowledged above, the swimming pool of this case constitutes "public structure" under the State Compensation Act, but the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the swimming pool of this case did not have ordinary safety requirements according to the purpose of use, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. 4) Rather, in light of the overall purport of pleadings, the swimming pool of this case has been posted a user warning, and two safety personnel among the 10 safety personnel with the certificate of qualification at the time were working, and there were two safety personnel among the above safety personnel in order to prevent safety accidents of swimming pool against the above safety personnel.

6. Recognizing the fact that regular education related to disaster emergency rescue and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, etc. practical training such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation is conducted. In full view of the following: (a) the qualifications and number of aquatic safety personnel do not reach the law; (b) safety personnel sent back the Plaintiff after the accident of this case; (c) artificial smoking and cardiopulmonary resuscitation was conducted; and (d) emergency relief measures were promptly conducted at intervals of about 10 minutes from the time when the Plaintiff was discovered to the time when the 119 emergency personnel arrived, the swimming pool of this case is deemed to have been equipped with normal safety.

5) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination on Defendant Foundation’s defense

1) Heading

Defendant Foundation: (1) The Plaintiff silentd a heart disease when the Plaintiff was admitted to a facility for 00 work activities in the operation of Defendant Foundation; (2) The employees of Defendant Foundation and the Plaintiff must comply with the instructions of Defendant Corporation, etc. in the swimming pool of this case. Since the duty to protect the safety of Defendant Foundation is transferred within the swimming pool to the Defendant Corporation, etc., the Defendant Foundation’s defense that the Defendant Foundation exempted the Plaintiff from liability for the Plaintiff’s damage caused by the instant accident. (2) The determination

Unless there is evidence that the instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s heart disease, the above assertion by the Defendant Foundation is without merit to further examine whether the Plaintiff had silentd the heart disease.

3) Determination on the assertion on the transfer of the duty to protect safety

According to the evidence No. 17 (the evidence No. 3) of this case, it is recognized that the phrase “A” was written as a cultural and sports center swimming pool subject matter. On the other hand, the evidence No. 17 (Evidence No. 3) of this case can be recognized as being written as well. The leading teachers of the defendant foundation are persons with professional expertise in the protection and decoration of the disabled compared with the safety personnel of the swimming pool. The opportunity for the plaintiff to use the swimming pool of this case was that the defendant Corporation selected the swimming pool of this case as the execution place of social adaptation training for the plaintiff and basic physical training program of the plaintiff. In light of the above, if the swimming pool is used, it cannot be deemed that the obligation to protect the swimming pool is entirely transferred to the defendant Corporation, the manager of the swimming pool of the plaintiff, and in case of persons necessary for the protection of others, the defendant foundation, the guardian of this case, and the defendant Corporation, the defendant foundation, should be jointly obligated to protect the users.

In the end, the above defense of the defendant foundation is without merit.

D. Determination on the assertion to reduce the amount of compensation by Defendant Foundation

1) The defendant foundation asserts that a non-profit corporation established under the Social Welfare Services Act is operated on the basis of the government’s subsidy and the foundation’s staff’s service spirit. In this case, the defendant foundation claims the exemption of the defendant foundation under the principle of good faith or the principle of equity in this case where the existence of the welfare foundation would be endangered if all the responsibility of the defendant foundation is charged to the defendant foundation.

2) On the other hand, Article 765 of the Civil Act provides that a person liable to compensate for damages by a tort shall not be caused either intentionally or by gross negligence, but may file a claim with the court for reduction of the amount of compensation, and the court may reduce the amount of compensation by taking into account the economic condition of the creditor and the debtor and the cause of the damage, etc.

However, the above provision applies only to the debtor who is a natural person, and does not apply to the corporation ( even if it applies to the corporation, the evidence submitted in this case alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant foundation will have a significant impact on the existence of the compensation, and there is no other evidence to prove it). Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant foundation is without merit.

5. Scope of damages.

For the convenience of calculation, the amount of less than a month shall be included in the side on which the appraised value is less than the won, the amount of less than the won shall be discarded, and the current calculation of the damages shall be in accordance with the fractional discount method which deducts the interim interest at the rate of 5/12 percent per month when the accident occurred, and it shall be rejected that the parties' arguments do not explain.

(a) Personal information on the basic matters (1)

The plaintiff is a male who was born on October 00, 200, and the age at the time of the accident in this case remains on May 27, 200. (2) The plaintiff's age at the time of the accident in this case as of the physical appraisal date ( October 7, 2009: as of October 7, 2009: the average life expectancy of the Korean male aged 29 (b) : 09 (Life Table 2007) (C) in 48.09 (Life Table 2007): The above plaintiff's life expectancy was expected to be only for 30.44 years (based on physical appraisal date) with an average life expectancy 63.3%, and therefore, until March 15, 2040.

According to the result of the court’s physical appraisal commission with respect to the Rab Hospital, the Plaintiff’s remaining life expectancy shall be 63.3% of the normal person’s 63.3% of the normal person. This is deemed to have been determined in consideration of the Plaintiff’s condition as at the time of the date of the physical appraisal. As such, the life expectancy shall be determined on the basis of the physical appraisal date.

(b) 7,59,457 (6) out of November 23, 2008, 30,00 (2) 00 university medical expenses for hospital treatment expenses of 696,430 (3) 000 hospital medical expenses of 7,760,605 (4) 7,623,395 (5) medical expenses for rehabilitation hospital treatment expenses of 000 hospital treatment expenses of 7,59, 457 (2), 30,000 air conditioning treatment expenses of 00 university, 70,430,000 (7), 80,000 (8): 23,829, 887, and 457 (5) + (1) 30,000,000 (3): The aggregate of 23,000 hospital treatment expenses of 00 hospital treatment expenses of 100,0000 + (1) 4,000,000 + (13) 6) 5.

C. Nursing expenses: The urban daily wage, which is the basis for calculating the opening expenses from August 16, 2007 to March 15, 204, which is the date of expiration of the life expectancy, is 57,820 won that the Plaintiff seeks from August 16, 2007 to August 31, 2007; 58,83 won per day from September 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007; 60,547 won from January 1, 208 to July 31, 2008; and 60,60,000 won from September 31, 2008 to June 31, 20, 2009 to June 31, 20, 2009; and

2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff cannot carry out well by itself the basic action for the maintenance of life, such as food, heavy rain, eating, eating, learning, clothes, etc., due to the current injury to fluoral brain of oxygen, unknown mashing, etc. In addition, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s age at the time of the instant accident, current Plaintiff’s artificial limbs and physical training, and symptoms of deterioration in recognition function are fixed and it is difficult to expect nursing through treatment. In addition, in a future rehabilitation treatment, in addition to daily life, the Plaintiff needs to receive proper care for the said Plaintiff, and there is no need to do so by an adult 8 hours from the date of the instant accident to the end of the date of the accident, but there is no need to take into account that there is no need for an appraisal by an adult 8 hours from the date of the instant accident, and that there is no need for an appraisal by an adult 4 hours from the date of the instant accident to the end of the date of the accident, and there is no need for an appraisal by an adult 8 hours from the date.

In addition, prior to the instant accident, the fact-finding inquiry inquiry reply to the purport that the Plaintiff is presumed to be presumed to have opened an ordinary 8 hours of 8 hours, and that the Plaintiff is deemed to have been in need of opening as seen earlier before the instant accident, and accordingly, the amount would be the source when calculating the opening costs.

As a result of the fact-finding reply to the above 5th KNY hospital, the defendant foundation argues that the plaintiff's 1% of the total amount of damage (such as daily profit, care expenses, future treatment expenses, consolation money, etc.) of the plaintiff's foundation cannot be viewed as a "person in need of another's protection for one life because it is substantially difficult to adapt to his/her daily life and social life" before the accident. However, the plaintiff's mental health and physical care was first grade, and the mental health and physical care were all equal to that of the plaintiff's 6th grade, and it is not possible to claim for the improvement expenses because the plaintiff's mental health and physical care did not have labor ability before the accident, and that the defendant foundation's participation in the daily life of the defendant foundation was no more than 3.75% of the total amount of damage (the daily life of the plaintiff, as well as 4.75% of the total disability rate or 9% of the total disability rate of the plaintiff's mental health and physical care).

Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

Calculation: Won +23, 829, 887 won = 498, 456, 646 won.

D. Whether comparative negligence exists

1) The Defendant Foundation silentd the heart disease, and the Plaintiff promised not to hold a civil or criminal liability for an accident that occurred during the course of the program of the Defendant Foundation, and the Plaintiff’s heart disease contributed more to the instant accident than the negligence of the Defendant Foundation, thus, the Defendant Foundation’s assertion that comparative negligence should be offset in consideration of this.

2) The comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act is intended to take into account the same care as the obligee’s in relation to the occurrence of damages, in a case where the obligee fails to fulfill his/her duty required under the good faith principle. Thus, even if the damages were caused or expanded due to such failure, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the victim, and even if the victim’s negligence is recognized, the court shall take into account the liability and amount of the damages, and even if the obligor did not assert the fault of the victim, if the damage was found by the litigation material, it shall be examined and determined ex officio by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da30113, Oct. 25, 196, etc.). However, in the accident of this case, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s car king evidence was the cause of the occurrence or expansion of the accident of this case, and there is no reason to acknowledge it differently.

E. Mutual aid (1) The amount of KRW 498, 456, 646, 00 calculated as 60,000 (2) to 60,000, 498, 456, 646, 000, 000 = 438, 456, 646 (1): The Plaintiff’s age, the background and result of the instant accident, the degree of fault on the part of the victim, and other circumstances shown in the instant argument (2): 20,000,000 won

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant foundation has a duty to pay the plaintiff Kim 00 with 458,456,646 won ( = 438,456,646 won + consolation money 20,000,000 won) and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from August 16, 2007 to July 7, 2010, which is the date of the judgment of this case where the defendant foundation disputes about the scope of the obligation to perform, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant foundation is unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant foundation against the defendant foundation are dismissed as it is without merit within the scope of recognition, and the remainder of claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and all claims against the defendant 00 is dismissed as per Disposition.