손해배상(기)
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. The grounds for this part of the underlying facts and the parties’ assertion are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2 Judgment
A. First of all, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant neglected to maintain and manage the wall before the collapse of the wall and caused the risk of safety accidents. However, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant neglected to maintain and manage the wall, and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise. 2) Next, the plaintiffs asserted that, after the collapse of the wall, the defendant neglected his duty of care to prevent the fall by installing a rail on the slope before the recovery work for a long time, and caused the death of the deceased.
Article 757 of the Civil Code provides that "the contractor shall not be liable for the damage inflicted upon a third party in connection with the work." However, the contractor shall not be liable for the damage inflicted upon a third party in connection with the work, unless there is gross negligence on the contractor's contract or instruction, unless there is a gross negligence on the contractor's part, and the contractor shall not be liable for the damage inflicted on the third party in connection with the work. The "serious negligence" refers to a case where the contractor could have easily predicted the result of the harm and danger if he takes a little attention even though he does not pay considerable attention to the extent required by the ordinary contractor, but it is a case where it is difficult to predict the result of the harm and danger easily, such as the case where
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant filed a civil petition with the view to the risk of collapse by rupture of the wall, i.e., the Defendant’s rupture from the deceased’s side, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the health stand in the instant case and the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier.