beta
(영문) 대전고등법원(청주) 2016.10.18 2015나12018

손해배상(산)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: “The 3rd 19th 19th 19th 19th 20, and 21th 14th 20 and 21th 3th 4th 9,000 of the first 1st 1st 1st 1st 20,000” each “medical care benefit-57,197,440 won” and “the 40,089,590th 14th 14th 2010 to January 5, 2015 (the 270th 270 days of hospitalization, 484th 48th 200), and disability benefit benefit-94,956,910 won (the 37,768,470th 58 through 11st 201).”

“Labor contractor shall be liable for damages caused by tort in competition with default liability under the labor contract.”

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da53086 delivered on April 25, 1997). The part of the 6th five act’s “illegal act” in the 6th five act as “non-performance or tort,” “57,197,440 won” in the 15th act and “51,024,181 won” (=108,221,621 won - 57,197,440 won) and “13,264,711 won (=108,221,621 won - 94,956,910 won)” in the 18th act as “40,034,980 won” in the 18th act as “40,509,590 won”, and “17,710 won” in the first instance judgment.

The judgment of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s defense of extinctive prescription is re-written in the following paragraph (2) and the 16th “strife of litigation” is re-written in the lower court’s reasoning, except where the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s respective arguments added in the trial are additionally determined in paragraph (3) below. As such, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Part to be used again; and

A. “C. Determination of the statute of limitations defense by the Defendant’s Intervenor 1) The Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s Intervenor, was the insurer of the instant mutual aid agreement to take over the liability for damages against the Plaintiff, the insured under the instant mutual aid agreement, and the liability for damages against the Defendant, the insured, and the Plaintiff, the insured, ought to be deemed as having a joint and several liability.

On the other hand, jointly and severally liable.