beta
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2017.08.09 2014가단52270

손해배상(산)

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendants jointly share KRW 8,804,723 as well as the amount from October 16, 2010 to August 9, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant Company is a company whose purpose is to collect and transport household wastes, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B, as an employee of the Defendant Company, driven a cleaning vehicle of the Defendant Company.

B. On October 15, 2010, the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C’s employees collected household wastes in the area where the Plaintiff was in charge of the cleaning vehicle operated by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), using the cleaning vehicle operated by the Plaintiff, and around 11:40 on the outer right of the instant vehicle (it is determined that the volume of wastes loaded at a height of about 30 cm from the ground to the outside right of the instant vehicle is measured, or that they are used for flexible seizure, etc.) while driving the Ddong office near the Ddong office at the speed of 5 to 10 km at the time, the Plaintiff was in charge of the head of the instant vehicle due to the decline in the vehicle’s engine (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as blood cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral le, external cerebral cerebral leap, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1 and 2; Gap evidence 5-1 and 5-2; Eul's testimony; fact-finding results on the chief of the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation's branch office of this court; defendant B's personal inquiry results; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims for damages caused by unlawful acts against the Defendants

A. (1) In the event of the Defendants’ liability for damages, all drivers of the Defendants are obliged to take account of and protect the safety of the life and body of the passengers during the operation of the automobiles, such as not operating a person on board a vehicle loaded with the cargo.

Nevertheless, Defendant B, as the driver of the instant vehicle, was found to have violated the above duties and instead laid the Plaintiff on the plate installed on the right side of the instant vehicle.