구상금
The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the Defendants are emphasized by this court, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the judgment. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Section 12 of the judgment of the first instance court on the 4th page 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the column of "basic matters" in the calculation table of the amount of compensation for damage attached hereto.
“” shall be written in the following manner:
The basis for calculation of the amount of compensation for damage among the personal information of ① victims E shall be as follows:
[Basic Matters] Name E’s name: “The expected date of birth H on June 8, 201, when an accident occurred between the age of 58 and 10 months, the age of 58, and the date of birth on June 9, 2017, when the age of 65 years ends on November 14, 2041, when the age of 65 years was terminated.”
2. Additional determination
A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1) The re-appellant E is negligent in failing to wear a safety walk by neglecting his duty of care to promote the safety of himself even though it is dangerous high-quality work at approximately five meters high, or in failing to properly fix the safety altitude on the burners of the instant accusation vehicle.
It is reasonable to limit the liability of the defendants to 60% by taking such negligence of the victim E into account to 40%.
2) Defendant F’s business owner, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) did not conduct safety education for the victim E, the driver of the instant vehicle, or the Defendant A, the driver of the instant vehicle, and did not assign a separate signal number, even though there was only one employee as the work manager, but did not conduct safety management and supervision for the work by leaving the accident site. The work manager did not confirm the condition of wearing safety equipment, such as the safety walk of the victim E, the work manager, and the type of fixing the safety equipment.
In light of these circumstances, G’s liability ratio is 50%, and it is against the Defendants.