beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.08.24 2017가단2110

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 42,656,955 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 1, 2014 to August 24, 2018.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

Defendant B, as the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant pention”), is running a pentry business with the trade name “E” in the instant pention along with Defendant C.

On February 1, 2014, while travelling with family members, the Plaintiff was accommodated in the third floor of the instant penture. At around 21:00 on the same day, the Plaintiff felled below 2m from the third floor and the second floor at a point between the third floor and the second floor, among the wooden stairs installed on the outer wall of the building and F, living together on the third floor.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). The collapsed stairs in contact with the wall of the warehouse installed on the right side of the stairs were fixed without the lower part, and the rail was of such structure that makes it difficult for people to wear.

(2) The Plaintiff was hospitalized in G Hospital from February 3, 2014 to February 26, 2014, and was hospitalized in the same hospital from January 14, 2015 to January 18, 2015.

[Reasons] Fact-finding without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 11 through 15, 19 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, testimony of witness F, and each physical appraisal commission to H Hospital by this court, and the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure under Article 758 (1) of the Civil Act, which is the basis of the whole purport of the pleading, refers to the defect in the establishment and preservation of a structure, in a state where the structure does not have safety ordinarily required according to its purpose. In determining whether such safety is satisfied, it shall be determined on the basis of whether the installer and custodian of the structure fulfilled the duty to take protective measures to the extent generally required by social norms in proportion

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da39548 delivered on January 14, 2000, etc.). This case pertains to this case.