beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 199,029,903 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 130,476,186 to Plaintiff B; and (c) respectively, from January 11, 2016 to January 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Plaintiff A’s status as a party is the deceased D (hereinafter “the deceased”).
The plaintiff D is the wife of the deceased, and the plaintiff D is the deceased. 2) The defendant is the person who operates the cafeteria with the trade name of "F" on the first and second floors of the building located in Busan Jin-gu E in Busan (hereinafter referred to as "the instant restaurant").
B. 1) The second floor of the instant restaurant is the 15 wooden stairs adjacent to the alley (one height, the 21cc width, and the hereinafter “instant stairs”).
2) On January 11, 2016, the Deceased of the instant restaurant 2: (a) the width of the stairs is wide; (b) the direction of the stairs is replaced, or the escape and rest space is installed in order to secure the escape and rest space. There is no room to open the entrance outside the entrance, and there is no space to narrow the distance between the entrance and the stairs when the entrance was opened fast. (c) The Deceased, around 23:10 on January 23, 2016, in the process of opening the entrance outside the entrance of the second floor with the left hand, intending to stop the entrance in the process of opening the two-story door outside the entrance, and falling into the first floor, i.e., the door was cut down, i., the distance between the entrance and the stairs.
As a result, the Deceased suffered from the injury of the Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Mad-Ma
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No ground for recognition' exists, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9 through 27, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including a serial number), the result of the on-site verification by this court, the fact inquiry and reply to the Busan Jin Police Station of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiffs asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to the structural defect in the cafeteria building of this case, and the ratio of negligence of the deceased.