자기책임의 원칙과 카지노 사업자의 보호의무 - 대법원 2014. 8. 21. 선고 2010다92438 전원합의체 판결에 관하여

Gambling has been the subject of legal regulations since the ancient times due to its social harms. Nevertheless, the Korean government approved the casino operation right of an entity, with no restriction on access by locals, to revitalize the regional economy of abandoned mining areas. Hence, the defendant was established to operate“ Gangwon Land Hotel & Casino.” The plaintiff of the case at hand has lost about twenty three thousand one hundred million won in his gambling in Gangwon Land, and filed a lawsuit against the defendant, asserting that defendant’s employees have violated the regulations on access limitations and maximum betting amount. Though the legal relationship between the casino operator and the visitor remains private, given the potential harm on the society that can be caused by casinos and general prohibition on gambling, the case at hand deals with the following issue: Should the government put more weight on business autonomy of the casino operator or paternalistic intervention in the bilateral relationship for visitor protection. The conclusion will depend on our individual ideas and moral standards. Supreme Court’s majority opinion stated that the principle of self-responsibility can be applied to the relationship between the two, but in exceptional cases an operator could be liable for a visitor’s damage caused by violation of it’s duty to protect visitors. But it dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on the ground that there was no violation of access limitations, and the betting limitation rules did not have the purpose of visitor protection. Based on the belief that certain governmental intervention on casinos is necessary, I objects to the conclusion of supreme court’s majority opinion which denied the protection purpose of betting amount restrictions and did not accept all the claims of the plaintiff.